Quantivate

Name: Quantivate
Brand: Quantivate
Rating: 4.4 (68 reviews)

Optimize business decisions around risk and compliance with integrated solutions from Quantivate by Ncontracts.

Est 2005|14 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 5K|FTEs 22|HQ Brentwood, Tennessee, US

Published Sep 16, 2026

01Common complaints

- Organizations that require mature, proven audit workpaper workflows and have a SOX-first program may prefer a vendor with broader adoption in internal audit (for example, AuditBoard). - Organizations whose procurement criteria prioritize a large library of prebuilt integrations and a low-code automation ecosystem should validate integration coverage; public evidence of an extensive integration catalog is limited. - Organizations that need transparent published list pricing for budgeting and procurement may find quote-based pricing models more difficult to manage. - Organizations that require ISO 27001 (or ISO 27017/27018) certification as a mandatory procurement gate should select a vendor with publicly documented ISO attestations unless the vendor can provide the certifications during security review. - Organizations seeking independently validated ROI benchmarks should consider vendors with broader third-party analyst coverage or a larger independent review base. - Reporting and performance - Some reviews cite slow loading times; an older reviewer excerpt cited limited report generation and printing capabilities. - Recommendation: validate real-world exports (PDF/Excel/board packs), printing behavior, and performance using representative datasets. - Integration limitations - Reviewer comments indicate integration friction; the vendor does not provide custom coding assistance for APIs. - Security documentation gaps - SOC 2 Type 2 is claimed, but public evidence for ISO certifications and detailed security artifacts is limited and should be requested during vendor security review. - Roadmap visibility - Public roadmap details and dated commitments were not found in the sources reviewed; interested organizations should request roadmap information during procurement.

02Why they buy

- Potential unique selling points with supporting evidence - Financial-institution specialization - The Quantivate Now offering targets banks and credit unions that are earlier in GRC maturity. - Integrated platform and reporting tooling - Report Builder and a shared data model are central to the vendor's product description; some reviewers cite reporting capabilities positively. - SOC 2 Type 2 compliance claim - The vendor's platform and industries pages state SOC 2 Type 2 compliance; procurement should obtain the SOC 2 report for verification. - Where competitors may have advantages - AuditBoard: broader mindshare and adoption in internal audit and SOX workflows. - LogicGate: clear packaging and licensing model that separates application builders from general users. - Workiva: strong reputation for complex reporting and structured documentation workflows.

03Field reports

Review platform evidence (G2 and Gartner Peer Insights)

- Gartner Peer Insights (vendor-level snapshot) - Analyst review listings show Quantivate present across multiple functional markets (including Business Continuity and Vendor Management/TPRM) with a mid-high overall rating and multiple reviews. - A Gartner review excerpt from 2017 is negative and highlights usability and reporting limitations. - G2 (The Quantivate Platform) - G2 shows a small number of reviews; small sample sizes can skew overall perception.

Direct quotes (positive and negative)

- Positive (G2) - "Quantivate's reporting is awesome. I can pull up all sorts of data and see how we're doing at a glance." — G2 reviewer (Aug 16, 2024) - "designed it in a simple way and easy to navigate… interface seems to be rather friendly and clear…" — G2 reviewer (Aug 22, 2024) - Constructive/negative (G2) - "the homepage might take time to load" — G2 reviewer (Aug 22, 2024) - "I do wish it integrated with some of our other systems a bit more seamlessly." — G2 reviewer (Aug 16, 2024) - "Kind of complicated to understand." — G2 reviewer (Jul 31, 2024) - Negative (Gartner Peer Insights excerpt) - "It was very hard to work with this tool… it has lots of glitches and has a zero report generation and printing abilities." — Gartner Peer Insights review excerpt dated Jun 6, 2017 - Note: this is an older data point and may not reflect current capabilities; however, it remains a relevant counterpoint to vendor claims about reporting.

Common themes (from accessible reviews)

- Reasons customers selected the product (inferred) - Reporting and dashboards are cited as strengths by some reviewers. - Configurability and templates are noted as important features in some reviews. - Purpose-built offerings for banks and credit unions (Quantivate Now) are highlighted as relevant for financial institutions. - Common criticisms - Performance: slow loading times reported in some reviews. - Integration limitations: some reviewers reported integration challenges. - Learning curve/complexity: several users reported a non-trivial learning curve. - Historical concerns about glitches and reporting/printing limitations (noted in older reviews). - Deal-breakers and reasons for non-purchase (limited public evidence) - Public loss narratives are limited. During procurement, buyers should validate: - Reporting requirements (board-ready packs, regulator-ready exports) - Integration requirements (core banking systems, ticketing, vendor inventory, IAM) - Performance expectations at scale (large inventories, high-volume activities)

Case study availability and examples

Public PDFs include a customer success story referencing a long-term customer relationship (an older selected year) and a Bangor Savings Bank case study PDF.
Older vendor pages list example customers such as Alaska Airlines, King County, World Vision, and Banner Bank.

What outcomes are claimed (examples)

Vendor materials historically report time reductions for creating or updating business continuity plans (for example, a stated reduction figure in an older press release).

Critical evaluation of case study claims

Many outcome metrics are vendor-published in press releases or marketing PDFs, with limited visibility into baseline methodology, sample sizes, or independent verification.
Treat ROI and time-savings numbers as directional estimates that require validation.

Mixed results / struggled implementations

Publicly accessible failed implementation narratives were not found in this research.
However, review excerpts citing complexity and older negative feedback on reporting suggest some customers have experienced friction with the platform.

04Best fit

Ideal Customer Profile

- Company sizes - Likely strong fit: - Mid-market organizations and regulated enterprises that require multiple GRC disciplines in a single platform. - Company size indicators in analyst profiles suggest a mid-market orientation, although product suitability should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. - Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples) - Financial institutions (primary focus) - Banks and credit unions are explicitly targeted via the Quantivate Now offering. - Other customers cited in older materials - Examples referenced in older vendor pages include Alaska Airlines, King County, World Vision, and Banner Bank. - Roles and personas - Decision makers - Chief Risk Officers, Chief Compliance Officers, Heads of Internal Audit, Third-Party Risk/Vendor Management leaders, and Business Continuity/Operational Resilience managers. - Day-to-day users - Risk analysts, compliance analysts, audit managers, vendor management coordinators, and business unit risk owners responsible for assessments and evidence submission. - Pain points the product addresses - Replacing spreadsheet-driven risk and compliance processes. - Reducing siloed tools across audit, business continuity, compliance, and vendor management. - Streamlining manual reporting for boards and regulators. - Implementing consistent workflows and audit trails. - Qualification criteria (good fit) - Requirement for integrated cross-module reporting (for example, linking issues, controls, vendors, and audits). - Willingness to invest in configuration and process standardization. - Preference for a vendor that provides professional services alongside the platform. - Deal disqualifiers (poor fit) - Organizations that require many out-of-the-box integrations and expect the vendor to implement custom integrations. - Organizations that require public ISO certifications and detailed security artifacts to be published upfront. - Use cases that demand highly specialized GRC features for non-financial verticals where Quantivate has limited public evidence of specialization.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Quantivate provides a configurable, SaaS-based Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) platform and a suite of modules intended to centralize risk and compliance data, automate workflows, and produce audit-ready reporting across disciplines such as: - Internal audit - Enterprise risk management (ERM) - Compliance management - Business continuity - Vendor/third-party risk management - Issues/complaints management - Policy and document management - The vendor describes an integrated GRC approach (shared data model across modules), configurable workflows, and reporting/dashboards via a feature referred to as Report Builder.

Target market and market positioning

Quantivate targets regulated industries, with an emphasis on banks and credit unions while also citing other regulated sectors.
The vendor sells both software and professional services (consulting and implementation), and provides a program called Quantivate Now intended to accelerate initial adoption for less mature programs.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Quantivate including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →