Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+ Audit

Name: Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+ Audit
Brand: Wolters Kluwer
Rating: 4.2 (576 reviews)

Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+ Audit is an internal audit management and workflow platform that plans audits, manages workpapers and evidence, tracks issues and actions, and produces audit reporting within a configurable, controlled audit lifecycle.

Est 1836|Valuation $19.4B|Raised $840K

LinkedIn 357K|Website|Web traffic 3.0M|FTEs 21,000|HQ Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands

MarketsInternal Controls & Audit Management

Platform CoversQuality Assurance Management Reporting

Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+ Audit screenshot

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative comparison (where alternatives excel)

AuditBoard vs TeamMate+ (themes from community and review ecosystems) - Community feedback often describes AuditBoard as relatively more user-friendly in onboarding and day-to-day use. Organizations that prioritize a modern UI and vendor-led implementation often list AuditBoard as an alternative. - TeamMate+ is commonly chosen when buyers prioritize audit-specific depth and public-sector compliance hosting. Workiva vs TeamMate+ - Workiva is often selected by organizations needing SEC reporting, SOX controls coordination, and cross-functional reporting collaboration; some organizations use Workiva for controls and TeamMate+ for operational/internal audit depending on scope. Diligent HighBond vs TeamMate+ - HighBond is positioned as part of a broader risk and compliance ecosystem and may appeal when unified GRC functionality is a priority.

Market share and adoption trends

Wolters Kluwer states TeamMate+ is deployed in many countries and supports multiple languages; review-platform presence indicates meaningful adoption among users who provide feedback.
Review counts on platforms are a proxy for visibility rather than a direct measure of market share.

	TeamMate+ Audit	AuditBoard	Diligent HighBond
Starting Price	Quote-based (pricing typically provided via contract or vendor quote)	Quote-based (request pricing from vendor)	Quote-based (some resellers list select modules)
Primary fit	Structured internal audit workflows and public sector needs; value for organizations needing formal audit methodology controls	Teams prioritizing usability and vendor-led onboarding (community feedback)	Organizations seeking audit plus broader GRC/risk/compliance workflows and mobile access
Key strengths	Deep audit-oriented workflow features and public sector compliance options	Community-perceived usability and onboarding experience	Broader GRC suite and mobile ecosystem
Key weaknesses	Report formatting/editor friction and review UX concerns reported by users	Potentially higher cost and suite-level complexity	Pricing and module complexity; may be heavier than needed for audit-only use

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative comparison (where alternatives excel)

AuditBoard vs TeamMate+ (themes from community and review ecosystems)

Community feedback often describes AuditBoard as relatively more user-friendly in onboarding and day-to-day use. Organizations that prioritize a modern UI and vendor-led implementation often list AuditBoard as an alternative.
TeamMate+ is commonly chosen when buyers prioritize audit-specific depth and public-sector compliance hosting.

Workiva vs TeamMate+

Workiva is often selected by organizations needing SEC reporting, SOX controls coordination, and cross-functional reporting collaboration; some organizations use Workiva for controls and TeamMate+ for operational/internal audit depending on scope.

Diligent HighBond vs TeamMate+

HighBond is positioned as part of a broader risk and compliance ecosystem and may appeal when unified GRC functionality is a priority.

Market share and adoption trends

Wolters Kluwer states TeamMate+ is deployed in many countries and supports multiple languages; review-platform presence indicates meaningful adoption among users who provide feedback.
Review counts on platforms are a proxy for visibility rather than a direct measure of market share.

	TeamMate+ Audit	AuditBoard	Diligent HighBond
Starting Price	Quote-based (pricing typically provided via contract or vendor quote)	Quote-based (request pricing from vendor)	Quote-based (some resellers list select modules)
Primary fit	Structured internal audit workflows and public sector needs; value for organizations needing formal audit methodology controls	Teams prioritizing usability and vendor-led onboarding (community feedback)	Organizations seeking audit plus broader GRC/risk/compliance workflows and mobile access
Key strengths	Deep audit-oriented workflow features and public sector compliance options	Community-perceived usability and onboarding experience	Broader GRC suite and mobile ecosystem
Key weaknesses	Report formatting/editor friction and review UX concerns reported by users	Potentially higher cost and suite-level complexity	Pricing and module complexity; may be heavier than needed for audit-only use