Workiva Risk Management

Name: Workiva Risk Management
Brand: Workiva
Rating: 4.5 (2525 reviews)

Workiva Risk Management is a governance, risk, and compliance solution that centralizes risk and control data, runs assessments and evidence collection, and produces linked, audit-ready reports and dashboards for traceable management and board reporting.

Est 2008|Valuation $4B|Raised $154M

LinkedIn 143K|Website|Web traffic 114K|FTEs 2,887|HQ Ames, IA

MarketsInternal Controls & Audit Management Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Workiva is relatively strong: - Reporting-grade collaboration and traceability: Workiva emphasizes connected reporting and audit trails. - Cross-functional unification: Workiva presents a cohesive story when finance/SEC reporting, ESG, audit, and risk are intended to converge on one platform. Where competitors can be stronger: - AuditBoard: Market perception often frames AuditBoard as purpose-built for audit/ERM operations and more intuitive for day-to-day GRC tasks, though pricing can be higher in some comparisons. - OneTrust: Frequently selected for privacy and tech risk programs and for standardized compliance across multiple frameworks; community feedback has included concerns about price increases and aggressive sales motions. Pricing comparison (directional, not definitive): - AuditBoard: Request pricing; third-party sources generally describe starting deals in mid-market to enterprise ranges. AuditBoard’s public messaging emphasizes licensing approaches rather than list prices. - OneTrust: Quote-based; vendor materials describe packaging and pricing drivers rather than list prices. Some public procurement listings show jurisdiction- or framework-specific license packages. - Workiva: Quote-based; anecdotal commentary indicates competitive positioning versus other audit/GRC vendors in some deals, though licensing model changes may affect renewal expectations. Signals from customer comparisons: - Community threads indicate AuditBoard can be perceived as more expensive in some demos, and that Workiva’s UI may be criticized by certain users.

	Workiva Risk Management	AuditBoard	OneTrust (Tech Risk & Compliance / GRC)
Starting Price	Quote-based; anecdotal examples indicate significant enterprise deal sizes for defined controls scopes	Request pricing; third-party commentary generally frames starting deals at mid-market to enterprise levels	Quote-based; pricing typically depends on admin users and asset inventory; some public listings indicate fixed license packages for specific frameworks
Typical fit	Organizations that prioritize connected reporting, audit trail, collaboration, and unifying risk/control data with reporting outputs	Audit and risk teams seeking purpose-built audit/risk workflows and broad adoption in large enterprises	Organizations emphasizing IT/tech risk, privacy, and compliance tasking across many frameworks
Key strength	Linking/connected data and reporting collaboration; audit-ready traceability	Perceived as purpose-built for audit/ERM workflows and broad enterprise adoption	Broad GRC/privacy ecosystem with asset-based risk management and compliance tasking
Key weakness	May feel reporting-centric versus operational ERM; learning curve and UI friction reported	Can be expensive; implementation can be complex and value depends on module selection	Pricing and support complaints appear in community threads; can be costly and involve extensive cross-selling

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Where Workiva is relatively strong:

Reporting-grade collaboration and traceability: Workiva emphasizes connected reporting and audit trails.
Cross-functional unification: Workiva presents a cohesive story when finance/SEC reporting, ESG, audit, and risk are intended to converge on one platform.

Where competitors can be stronger:

AuditBoard: Market perception often frames AuditBoard as purpose-built for audit/ERM operations and more intuitive for day-to-day GRC tasks, though pricing can be higher in some comparisons.
OneTrust: Frequently selected for privacy and tech risk programs and for standardized compliance across multiple frameworks; community feedback has included concerns about price increases and aggressive sales motions.

Pricing comparison (directional, not definitive):

AuditBoard: Request pricing; third-party sources generally describe starting deals in mid-market to enterprise ranges. AuditBoard’s public messaging emphasizes licensing approaches rather than list prices.
OneTrust: Quote-based; vendor materials describe packaging and pricing drivers rather than list prices. Some public procurement listings show jurisdiction- or framework-specific license packages.
Workiva: Quote-based; anecdotal commentary indicates competitive positioning versus other audit/GRC vendors in some deals, though licensing model changes may affect renewal expectations.

Signals from customer comparisons:

Community threads indicate AuditBoard can be perceived as more expensive in some demos, and that Workiva’s UI may be criticized by certain users.

	Workiva Risk Management	AuditBoard	OneTrust (Tech Risk & Compliance / GRC)
Starting Price	Quote-based; anecdotal examples indicate significant enterprise deal sizes for defined controls scopes	Request pricing; third-party commentary generally frames starting deals at mid-market to enterprise levels	Quote-based; pricing typically depends on admin users and asset inventory; some public listings indicate fixed license packages for specific frameworks
Typical fit	Organizations that prioritize connected reporting, audit trail, collaboration, and unifying risk/control data with reporting outputs	Audit and risk teams seeking purpose-built audit/risk workflows and broad adoption in large enterprises	Organizations emphasizing IT/tech risk, privacy, and compliance tasking across many frameworks
Key strength	Linking/connected data and reporting collaboration; audit-ready traceability	Perceived as purpose-built for audit/ERM workflows and broad enterprise adoption	Broad GRC/privacy ecosystem with asset-based risk management and compliance tasking
Key weakness	May feel reporting-centric versus operational ERM; learning curve and UI friction reported	Can be expensive; implementation can be complex and value depends on module selection	Pricing and support complaints appear in community threads; can be costly and involve extensive cross-selling