We performed a comparison between AuditBoard and Workiva Wdesk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two GRC solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its ability to share the data in real-time has helped us well."
"The most significant feature of AuditBoard is its community tools. It provides an internal communication platform that enables users to communicate within the system rather than relying on external tools such as Outlook or Microsoft products. By communicating within the system, all interactions are centralized and accessible, promoting a streamlined workflow."
"There are lots of features."
"AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past."
"I find the most significant elements of this solution are the out-of-the-box reporting, the ease of workflow, workflow management, and the ease of managing our audit process."
"AuditBoard has several solutions for governance, internal audit, and other categories."
"In AuditBoard, there are all the audit steps, including documentation, archiving, and tracking the progress of audits."
"Considering the solution's return on investment, it has been extremely helpful since we were doing a lot of documentation. Previously, in our company, we were using an Excel sheet which made things quite messy."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to easily upload and update financial results, creating a dynamic data sheet."
"Workiva Wdesk has a flow diagram that is standardized, making it easy for people to file documents on ECDAs, which are in HTML format."
"It helps you to maintain a backup of your data, including the connectivity with the tables, which provides a user-friendly way to handle and access your files."
"Workiva Wdesk is pretty good in terms of getting the data from the system, automating the reporting schedules...It has a very good integration with ERP tools."
"The collaboration within the platform is valuable."
"It makes the compliance process more efficient and more effective."
"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."
"Some of that flexibility could be enhanced. When comparing Archer and TeamMate+, there is a little more open-ended in terms of certain of our audit processes and procedures. And there is significantly greater freedom in creating ad hoc audit processes and procedures, whereas AuditBoard is a little more limiting in this regard."
"Everything is there, and I have no disadvantage to note as of now."
"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."
"The initial setup is somewhat difficult because it has multiple pieces that need to be stitched together. You have to integrate it with the business unit you want to test if you want to go down from the corporate level to the operational level."
"AuditBoard has the potential for improvement in a few key areas. Firstly, I have experienced instances where the platform has experienced technical issues and ceased to function effectively. Additionally, the editing tools provided within the platform can be slow and laggy, particularly when trying to access and edit important documents. This can be a hindrance to my workflow and efficiency. To address these issues, they should begin by improving the speed and reliability of the platform, as well as enhancing the search engine to make it easier to find specific controls and documents within the platform."
"After sending out a request to my network for documents, it would be great to have a receipt that shows who received the request and who did not."
"A handful of things in the solution need to be improved. One of them is better communication of updates to the system or tool itself."
"With this product, it's more about the integrated data model where you can have a one-to-many/many-to-one relationship between your policies and processes, risks, and controls. They need to showcase how you can put those pieces together."
"The speed must be improved."
"At this point, I don't see a compelling reason to invest in Workiva. It may be necessary for compliance and controlling the version of SCC, but not everyone needs its high-end capabilities."
"Regarding the solution, reporting has certain areas that can be considered for improvement."
"The most critical issue is the need to shift between uppercase and lowercase."
"One area where Workiva Wdesk could improve is by ensuring that its cloud-based system is fully compatible with the most current versions of PowerPoint and Excel."
AuditBoard is ranked 2nd in GRC with 11 reviews while Workiva Wdesk is ranked 7th in GRC with 6 reviews. AuditBoard is rated 8.6, while Workiva Wdesk is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of AuditBoard writes "User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Workiva Wdesk writes "A user-friendly tool useful for data consolidation and automating the reporting schedules". AuditBoard is most compared with OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer, IBM OpenPages and LogicGate, whereas Workiva Wdesk is most compared with Oracle Hyperion, OneTrust GRC, RSA Archer, LucaNet and ACL Analytics. See our AuditBoard vs. Workiva Wdesk report.
See our list of best GRC vendors.
We monitor all GRC reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
