Enterprise multi-framework automation versus a healthcare-first platform with services bundled.
Where we are different
- Healthcare-first data model. Covered entity and business associate scoping is built in, not configured.
- Services and assessments from one vendor. Software, implementation, and independent reporting under one contract.
- Predictable cost. Published tiers, no per-connection surprises, 3-year price lock.
- Faster to a defensible position. 8–12 weeks with our team doing the remediation work alongside yours.
Side by side
| SuperHIPAA | Drata | |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA platform | Yes | Yes |
| Gap assessment delivered in-house | Yes | |
| Risk analysis delivered in-house | Yes | |
| Independent assessment report issued | Yes | |
| Virtual HIPAA Officer | Yes | |
| Implementation / remediation services | Yes | |
| Additional frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR) | Yes, same control set | |
| Published pricing | Yes | |
| Multi-year price lock | 3 years | |
| Free migration | Yes |
When to choose Drata instead
- You are a large enterprise standardising on one GRC platform across non-healthcare business units
- You have a dedicated compliance team that only needs tooling
We would rather you buy the right thing than churn in month four.
What buyers actually get wrong
Teams evaluate these platforms on integration count. Integration count is a proxy, and a weak one. The questions that predict whether you will pass a real customer audit are: Is our risk analysis current and asset-based? Can we produce evidence with dates? Can we show who acknowledged which policy version? Do we have a signed BAA for every vendor touching ePHI?
Score both vendors on those four. The evaluation scorecard below does it for you.
Start where you are
Take the free readiness assessment — 24 questions, about eight minutes, no call required. You get a scored report identifying which required specifications you are missing and what to fix first. If it turns out you are further along than you thought, we will tell you that too.