AuditBoard Reviews

AuditBoard is user-friendly, highly intuitive, and simple to use. Additionally, the most significant concern for any user is avoiding accidental damage to the system. However, the system is very adaptable, so users need not worry about causing any damage.

The advantages of the AuditBoard system are diverse, including the ability to manage remote resources efficiently. For instance, I had a few team members working in Japan, while another couple of resources were in South Carolina, and I was based in Florida. Nevertheless, I could effortlessly access the system, monitor their progress, provide feedback, and engage in seamless communication regarding their workflow.

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.

This system offers a robust audit trail that preserves all notes and works as long as the user maintains their product membership. Moreover, email alerts are linked directly to the user's working box, provided their working emails are integrated with the system. This feature guarantees that users can easily access critical notifications and alerts.

Furthermore, in the event that someone sends a message within the tool while a user is not logged in, the user will receive a notification via their working email, informing them that there is a message or request waiting for them within the application.

AuditBoard could benefit from the addition of video capabilities, although it is not a necessity. Small companies that cannot afford licenses for Microsoft Teams or Zoom would benefit greatly from this feature, as it would enhance the communication process.

Another area for improvement is the integration of different modules within the tool. Currently, they are marketed separately, but it would be beneficial to have at least two or three solutions integrated into the system. This would simplify the purchasing process for users and enhance the overall functionality of the AuditBoard system. 

The system has the capability to communicate through emails or messages, but it currently lacks video or audio communication features. Integrating Microsoft Teams or Zoom within the tool would be a great addition as it would allow for communication to occur within the system and ensure that it is all stored in one place. However, it is important to note that with Microsoft Teams, unless specified otherwise, conversations are automatically deleted after sixty to ninety days. This could be problematic for auditors, as documentation is essential. By having conversations within the tool, they become part of the documentation and are preserved for future reference. Using Zoom or Microsoft Teams to collect notes and communicate would be beneficial, as it allows for various forms of communication, such as video chats or messages. However, currently, AuditBoard does not offer these features.

I have used AuditBoard for approximately three years.

We never experienced any downtime. The server was consistently up and the tool was always available when we needed it.

I rate the scalability of AuditBoard a nine out of ten.

The solution scales well.

We have approximately 120 users using the solution in my organization.

I rate the scalability of AuditBoard a ten out of ten.

AuditBoard's support is highly responsive. They promptly address our queries and when they encounter questions they cannot answer, they involve additional experts in conference calls to provide solutions. They maintain continuous communication with us through phone calls and emails, even after implementing the solutions, to ensure stability and identify areas for improvement. This level of customer care and product support speaks volumes about their dedication to their customers.

I rate the support of AuditBoard a seven out of ten.

Positive

Before transitioning to AuditBoard, I relied on Microsoft Excel. The decision to switch was driven by the desire to avoid errors, duplication of effort, data and documentation loss, and frustration associated with using SharePoint. In times like these, investing in a comprehensive solution like AuditBoard is a wise choice.

In contrast, with Microsoft Excel, it can be mentally challenging to remember the location of a specific worksheet after two or three years. However, with AuditBoard, you simply select the year, location, and process, and all relevant documentation is accessible in one place. This includes who completed the work, when it was done, how it was done, and any uploaded documentation, support, conclusions, review notes, and messages. It was an easy decision because AuditBoard was exactly what we were looking for.

The implementation of AuditBoard can be somewhat challenging due to its many components. While the customer service department is helpful and provides a good implementation experience, some clients may not be knowledgeable about how to create or set up the tool. This can result in auditors going back and forth with the AuditBoard team to ensure a satisfactory implementation. However, the AuditBoard team is patient and works with us until we are happy with the final product.

The implementation time can vary depending on the complexity of the project. In our case, it took us around 180 days to complete the implementation and post-sales service. While it's possible to finish in 90 days or less, there are many factors that come into play and can cause delays. In our experience, we found that it takes about six months to make all the necessary adjustments and be completely satisfied with the implementation.

I rate the initial setup of AuditBoard a seven out of ten.

Everything was kept in-house. This can be beneficial as long as the IT team is competent and capable of handling any issues that arise.

There were three of us involved in the process: two people working on uploading the data into the submission tool provided by AuditBoard, and myself overseeing the implementation process.

The return on investment for this tool is exceptionally high, particularly when considering the time saved by auditors, control owners, and process owners. We were able to reduce the processing time by an impressive 40 percent, which becomes even more significant when factoring in the hours spent on Excel per month by our team of around 120 people. Assuming an average hourly rate of $50, this equates to roughly $50,000 per month. However, with the 40 percent reduction in processing time, employees are now able to focus on other important tasks, leading to a decrease in cost per person. This translates to a return of $20,000, which means that the cost of the tool, which is $53,000 per year, can be recouped in just a few months, based solely on the use of the tool for one specific task - the Quality Control questionnaire, which is mandatory for our company. This astounding return on investment is not even considering other tasks such as testing, documentation, or report preparation. It is clear that the tool offers excellent value for money.

I collaborate with the contracts and conducted negotiations with AuditBoard. The contract terms are quite reasonable and offer good value for money, but there may be room for improvement. Perhaps a loyalty program could be implemented to reward long-term customers with savings. However, it is uncertain why they charge based on the number of controls. For instance, if you have a hundred controls as a basic package, you are only able to test that number within their platform. Additional controls beyond this number would incur extra charges, which was a surprise to us. We negotiated to reduce the number of controls, but this was not an ideal solution. Consistent pricing without any unexpected charges is crucial for our CFO's approval, and this model of charging for controls beyond a certain threshold was unexpected and the only weakness I perceived during the pricing negotiation process.

If you exceed the maximum number of controls allowed on the platform, you will be charged extra for additional sets of controls. This came as a surprise to us at first, and we negotiated to reduce the number of controls to be close to the maximum allowed. However, we don't want to have this model where we are charged for exceeding a certain threshold. It's difficult to negotiate and sell the solution to the CFO, so once it's approved, we want consistent pricing with no surprises. This was the only weakness we saw in the pricing negotiation regarding the manual controls that can be tested.

I rate the price of AuditBoard a five out of ten.

I highly recommend this tool as the price is reasonable. However, consistent pricing is important, and having a loyalty program that rewards long-term customers with lower prices would be a great addition.

We considered other options, such as Fortiva, and even acquired Workiva. However, at that time, three years ago, Workiva was mainly a financial reporting tool, which was great for the consolidation team. It was intuitive and well-liked. But when they began promoting it as an internal audit or Sarbanes-Oxley tool, it was still in development and did not meet our expectations. We used both companies for financial reporting and internal controls/audits.

Individuals or organizations considering implementing AuditBoard should prepare themselves to ensure that their risk control matrices are updated and that their data is aligned with the template. They should also have a clear vision of what they want to achieve, as this tool is highly scalable and flexible in terms of implementation. Transitioning from an Excel-based system may pose some challenges, as it did for our organization, but once we received guidance on how to effectively replicate our existing system in AuditBoard, the benefits became apparent. It is important for companies to be open-minded and recognize that there may be some initial heavy lifting required, but the payoff in terms of the tool's performance is well worth it.

I rate AuditBoard a nine out of ten.

I have not used the solution. I am a system integrator who assists with platform selection and implementation.

The majority of the individuals we assist on the platform or through selections are searching for SOX assistance, internal audit, of course, as well as basic risk management.

AuditBoard standardized our control processes, and our control policies to make the organization more efficient in managing Audits, Risk, and Compliance concerns. 

All of the components are included in the platform. It gives us visibility into who we are auditing, as well as a better understanding of the process concerns and the best method to address them.

Also, if we have a lot of findings, why do we have these findings? Is it a training issue or anything else?

It allows us better insights into how the organization is functioning. 

And then relative to the findings, it ensures when an organization has odd findings, whether minor or significant, we can track those through to a conclusion or correction or just decide not a big enough issue that we're going to do anything.

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.

While AuditBoard is very powerful and very strong, it is a little bit limiting. 

It is limited by the fact that it is very structured. For example, I am unable to deviate sufficiently from the audit process. 

I can't institute a lot of my own pieces. I have to use their standard out-of-the-box process, which is quite inconvenient. Understandable, however, still somewhat frustrating in terms of how the process works.

When trying to integrate plugins, not necessarily modules, but processes and procedures. We have unique business elements, and we find different ways to audit it and how it works, but it's limiting from that standpoint.

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.

I have been acquainted with it when it was SOXHUB before it was AuditBoard.

I don't recall the version numbers, but we are up-to-date on the latest versions.

Because they are all intermingled among all the instruments we use. I never recall the exact version number. It's simply too difficult. They change so frequently.

AuditBoard is extremely stale. I would rate the stability of AuditBoard an eight out of ten.

There are different elements of scalability. I think scalability in terms of volume of users, volumes of data, it's very scalable, it is unlimited. 

AuditBoard is very scalable. 

If however, you are looking for scalability around the complexity and sophistication of your internal audit process, it is not as scalable, it becomes a little bit more limiting.

A corporation like ExxonMobil, Citi Group, and General Electric, large companies like that, it is not an audit tool that would fit well into those organizations, simply because they are larger, more complicated, and have too many moving pieces. That aspect of scalability is not ideal for an AuditBoard.

I have been in contact with technical support, not as much with the ongoing technical support, but certainly around the initial rollout and use of it.

Technical support is fine, it's great. It is as good as all the others. It is on par with its competitors, or better, they are fine, more than adequate. 

I would rate the technical support a seven, or an eight out of ten.

Along with AuditBoard, I am familiar with TeamMate+, Workiva, and Archer, all of which are part of the four pillars of the internal audit space.

We have integrated internal audit tools such as Archer, TeamMate+, and Workiva, to mention a few. There are others as well. They all, to some extent, depend on your internal audit process and how it integrates with other risk and compliance initiatives inside your organization.

It is very simple to integrate. Some of this is because it works well for smaller, more basic groups, and it's incredibly simple to set up and get started. And part of it is due to the fact that it is more out-of-the-box in the process.

It allows rapid acceleration from an immature audit process to a more mature audit process. However, if you are a large organization, AuditBoard is not going to fit because it is too limiting in what you can change around the audit processes and procedures.

It is deployed within the AuditBoard cloud which is secure and structured. They have all the SOC2 and all the securities. You still need to add elements of your own security and your own identity depending on how you want to connect to it.

It is no different than all the other cloud-based solutions like Workday, ServiceNow, Salesforce, et cetera. From a security standpoint, it is quite robust.

Pricing is variable, like with any technology, and is determined by how hard you wish to negotiate. You can get to a price you're willing to pay if you're willing to negotiate aggressively.

It's more about the strength of your procurement cycle.

Which is no different than dealing with any other software platform.

In terms of extra costs I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there aren't a lot of gotcha surprises with them, none that come to mind.

I believe you should consider your audit processes, audit procedures, and where you want to take your internal audit program to see if AuditBoard is a good fit in terms of the complexity and sophistication of your audit processes and procedures.

Aside from that, I believe it's quite straightforward and simple to use. It's less about what you are doing now in your internal audit program and more about where your business is going and what you might require in the future.

I would rate it a six out of ten. It's a great solution for what it does. 

It just depends on what you are trying to achieve and a lot of that is understanding what you are trying to achieve to get to that level of maturity of your program.

We use the solution for compliance management and documentation purposes.

The solution has worked as an efficient tool for us. Its ability to share real-time data has helped us well.

The solution's most valuable feature is the ease of accessing historical and real-time data.

They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use. They should include more features similar to Excel. They should also add a read-only feature so the entire corporation can access the solution. It will be helpful for everyone in the organization.

We have been using the solution for one and a half years.

I rate the solution's stability as a nine. There are only a few times when it dropped down for a bit.

I rate the solution's scalability as an eight. We have 20 users of the solution in our organization. If they add the read-only feature, we will plan to increase the usage.

I have seen demos of Workiva. In comparison, AuditBoard is much smoother.

I have previously used the solution for in-house database management for my company as well. It is a good solution. I recommend it over other solutions and rate it as a nine.