We performed a comparison between OneTrust GRC and RSA Archer 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."The product helps us streamline audit and incident management processes."
"It does help in the automation of our privacy impact assessments."
"As a solution for IT risks, it is a very good product."
"One of the valuable features of this solution is it has the ability to review fourth and fifth parties to the nth degree."
"We receive notifications or cases and prioritize them accordingly, which helps us address issues promptly."
"We have data from Jira regarding addiction related to Europe as well as California. Additionally, we have data related to the Indian Data Protection Bill. Therefore, GDPR compliance is highly beneficial."
"OneTrust GRC is stable."
"OneTrust GRC offers policy management, including documentation, distribution, attestation, and policy management."
"RSA Archer has reduced the time and effort required for meetings."
"Even non-technical people can be masters of the product."
"RSA is a very rich application. I like its adaptive suggestion, where based on your users and the class of data, it can actually recommend you the proper control to choose. For example, we have been using PCI DSS as an NIST. So based on application feedback, it will provide you with a suggestion on which control objective needs to be set. Based on that, you can make a decision—you don't need to take the suggestion, but you can customize that particular provided suggestion. RSA Archer's workflow is also good, in terms of process automation."
"The solution has improved my organization by having everything combined to a single platform."
"The solution has helped our organization manage our internal and external activities."
"Solution is scalable."
"The part I liked about Archer was the risk assessment for deficiencies and being able to use it there."
"Flexible record permissions and data import features."
"There are several areas for improvement. One is the integration capability. Connecting various DSAR systems can be time-consuming if a single integration takes months to complete."
"There are limitations to customized workflow automation, and they need to increase both the available automation and the customized workflow."
"We encounter difficulties creating multiple platforms or interfaces and manual processes for changing certain settings."
"The product is not that easy to set up."
"They could improve by offering free help. A solution, a lot of times, is not just the use of the solution. For example, it is the overall engagement, how well do they support the system, what is their SLA, and how long their response time is to an issue. It would be beneficial if they had some type of professional services where they offer the first five hours of professional services a year for free. That would be a substantial benefit rather than having to buy professional services or professional services packages."
"I haven't seen any return on investment using the solution. If I had the opportunity, I would use a different solution."
"The Vendor Risk dashboard is quite basic today and not interactive, but improvements are in coming the next releases."
"OneTrust GRC's workflows aren't automated and need to be manually driven."
"The ticket handling process could be improved."
"There is no inbuilt alert in Archer to let us know that a data feed has failed or did not run for different reasons. So, we don't even get to know that a feed has not run until somebody reports it to us. This has been a problem all the time. Data feeds have always been a big headache for us because there is no feature to let us know if a feed has not run or has failed. If Archer had a feature to send us an email notification when a feed has failed, it would've been very helpful. This is the reason why our users are slowly moving away to another platform. Some of the modules that I have been managing are being moved to ServiceNow. Next year, a lot of our modules will be moved from RSA Archer to ServiceNow, and the data feed issue has been one of the main reasons."
"There were so many problems that we had found. One time, the search index was not working. We also faced slowness in Archer, but I resolved this issue."
"The user interface needs work. There are many small text boxes, like credit card size's boxes, where we need to input a lot of text. You can't see what you're typing beyond the tiny window, so you have to scroll or type elsewhere and copy-paste it. It's very inconvenient."
"If you need to integrate the RSA products with another SEIM solution, then it doesn't work properly."
"Some of the error reporting isn't very clear. When you're looking for information on error codes, you got to do a lot of digging."
"I would like to see real-time data, from vulnerabilities, and threats."
"I find the tech support to be inadequately knowledgeable."
OneTrust GRC is ranked 5th in GRC with 9 reviews while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews. OneTrust GRC is rated 8.0, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OneTrust GRC writes "Effective privacy management, but the technical support could improve, and it is difficult to implement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". OneTrust GRC is most compared with ProcessUnity, AuditBoard, Workiva Wdesk, LogicGate and Bitsight Third-Party Risk Management, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Microsoft Purview Communication Compliance, Workiva Wdesk and Snow Governance & Risk. See our OneTrust GRC vs. RSA Archer report.
See our list of best GRC vendors and best IT Vendor Risk Management 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.