VISO TRUST

Name: VISO TRUST
Brand: VISO TRUST

AI agents for third-party risk. Vendor assessments in minutes, not months.

Est 2016|Valuation $41M|Raised $38M|7 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 13K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 43|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsVendor Risk Management Cyber Risk Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

VISO TRUST vs OneTrust: - OneTrust provides a broad governance/privacy platform with a third-party risk module and can be attractive for buyers standardizing on a single vendor for GRC and privacy requirements. - VISO TRUST is more narrowly focused on cyber-diligence and artifact extraction. - For buyers that require integrated ethics/compliance screening (for example, sanctions or adverse media) combined with vendor cyber risk, a broader suite such as OneTrust may be stronger. VISO TRUST vs SecurityScorecard: - SecurityScorecard uses an outside-in approach and can score vendors without vendor cooperation, making it effective for broad supply chain monitoring. - VISO TRUST emphasizes evidence from vendor-provided artifacts, which can be more useful for audit defense and control-level verification. - Many mature programs use both types of systems: ratings for early signals and evidence-based review for critical vendors. VISO TRUST vs Whistic / SafeBase (adjacent): - Whistic and SafeBase typically support vendor-side sharing of trust profiles and can streamline inbound security reviews for vendors. - VISO TRUST focuses on buyer-side automation of artifact processing and evidence mapping.

	VISO TRUST	OneTrust Third-Party Risk Mgmt	SecurityScorecard (Third-Party Cyber Risk Mgmt)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (quote-based). Website references a limited free trial	Not publicly listed (contact vendor for pricing)	Free self-rating; vendor monitoring plans are tiered; enterprise pricing is by contract
Typical Use Case	Teams focused on artifact-led, evidence-based vendor diligence and audit evidence management	Enterprises seeking broad third-party lifecycle workflows and integrated privacy/compliance tooling	Organizations prioritizing outside-in ratings and continuous monitoring without vendor cooperation
Key Strength	AI extraction from artifacts and evidence mapping to frameworks; reduction of questionnaire volume	End-to-end third-party lifecycle workflows and large ecosystem breadth	Rapid, non-cooperative monitoring at scale; easy to initiate with a free tier
Key Weakness	Vendor-published claims require validation; some integration gaps noted; limited public review volume	Can be complex and broad in scope; potential for platform sprawl; pricing opacity	Outside-in ratings can lack context and produce false positives without vendor-provided evidence

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

VISO TRUST vs OneTrust:

OneTrust provides a broad governance/privacy platform with a third-party risk module and can be attractive for buyers standardizing on a single vendor for GRC and privacy requirements.
VISO TRUST is more narrowly focused on cyber-diligence and artifact extraction.
For buyers that require integrated ethics/compliance screening (for example, sanctions or adverse media) combined with vendor cyber risk, a broader suite such as OneTrust may be stronger.

VISO TRUST vs SecurityScorecard:

SecurityScorecard uses an outside-in approach and can score vendors without vendor cooperation, making it effective for broad supply chain monitoring.
VISO TRUST emphasizes evidence from vendor-provided artifacts, which can be more useful for audit defense and control-level verification.
Many mature programs use both types of systems: ratings for early signals and evidence-based review for critical vendors.

VISO TRUST vs Whistic / SafeBase (adjacent):

Whistic and SafeBase typically support vendor-side sharing of trust profiles and can streamline inbound security reviews for vendors.
VISO TRUST focuses on buyer-side automation of artifact processing and evidence mapping.

	VISO TRUST	OneTrust Third-Party Risk Mgmt	SecurityScorecard (Third-Party Cyber Risk Mgmt)
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (quote-based). Website references a limited free trial	Not publicly listed (contact vendor for pricing)	Free self-rating; vendor monitoring plans are tiered; enterprise pricing is by contract
Typical Use Case	Teams focused on artifact-led, evidence-based vendor diligence and audit evidence management	Enterprises seeking broad third-party lifecycle workflows and integrated privacy/compliance tooling	Organizations prioritizing outside-in ratings and continuous monitoring without vendor cooperation
Key Strength	AI extraction from artifacts and evidence mapping to frameworks; reduction of questionnaire volume	End-to-end third-party lifecycle workflows and large ecosystem breadth	Rapid, non-cooperative monitoring at scale; easy to initiate with a free tier
Key Weakness	Vendor-published claims require validation; some integration gaps noted; limited public review volume	Can be complex and broad in scope; potential for platform sprawl; pricing opacity	Outside-in ratings can lack context and produce false positives without vendor-provided evidence