Workiva Audit Management

Name: Workiva Audit Management
Brand: Workiva
Rating: 4.5 (2524 reviews)

Workiva Audit Management is an internal audit management solution that centralizes audit planning, fieldwork, workpapers, analytics, and remediation tracking as part of the broader Workiva platform.

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

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

MarketsInternal Controls & Audit Management

Platform CoversAI Audit Agent

01Competitive Landscape

Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Workiva Audit Management | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) | Diligent (HighBond / Diligent One) | |---|---|---|---| | Starting Price | Quote-based; public-sector catalogs show relatively high per-unit pricing for government audit management; enablement services priced separately | Quote-based | Quote-based | | Best For | Organizations that want internal audit, controls/SOX, and reporting on a single connected platform; teams that prioritize linked reporting and cross-functional collaboration | Audit-native internal audit/SOX lifecycle management; teams that focus on workpapers and testing workflows | Organizations seeking a broader GRC suite that includes audit, risk, compliance, and analytics | | Key Strength | Cross-document linking and collaboration; integration with reporting and disclosure workflows | Reputation for audit-native workflows and templates; strong adoption among internal auditors | Established GRC vendor with broad governance and compliance offerings | | Key Weakness | Reported usability friction for some users; perception that controls/audit is less native relative to audit-first competitors; potential customization overhead and cost | Cost and procurement overhead noted by some; mixed support anecdotes in community threads | Complexity and implementation effort can be significant depending on selected modules | - Direct competitors and their key differentiators - Optro (AuditBoard) - Frequently positioned as an audit-native solution with an engagement- and controls-centric design developed by practitioners. - Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+ - Commonly selected by organizations with established audit methodologies and legacy audit tool footprints. - Archer / MetricStream - Often chosen for enterprises that require broad GRC workflow breadth and extensive configuration. - SAP Audit Management - Considered by SAP-centric enterprises for integration into SAP landscapes. - Feature comparison: where Workiva may excel vs lag - Workiva likely excels - Cross-document linking and report tie-outs; collaboration across finance, legal, and audit stakeholders. - Workiva may lag (relative to audit-native tools) - Depth of audit-native workflows for workpapers and daily auditor tasks; some practitioners view competing tools as more focused on the audit lifecycle. - Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives - Workiva - Typically quote-based enterprise subscriptions; public-sector line items indicate meaningful annual costs plus onboarding and enablement services. - Lower-cost alternatives - Some vendors publish self-serve pricing aimed at smaller teams; these may offer limited functionality compared with enterprise suites and require trade-offs. - Build-your-own - Several audit teams report building internal solutions on Microsoft or other stacks; this can reduce vendor spend but increases internal engineering, maintenance, and governance costs. - Customer testimonials comparing Workiva to competitors - Community examples are mixed; some users prefer Workiva’s interface and linking model, while others prefer Optro/AuditBoard’s audit-native workflows. - Market share and adoption trends - Industry surveys indicate Workiva, AuditBoard, and spreadsheets remain among the most used tools for SOX and controls work in recent years, suggesting continued incumbency alongside competing solutions.

01Competitive Landscape

Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Workiva Audit Management	Optro (formerly AuditBoard)	Diligent (HighBond / Diligent One)
Starting Price	Quote-based; public-sector catalogs show relatively high per-unit pricing for government audit management; enablement services priced separately	Quote-based	Quote-based
Best For	Organizations that want internal audit, controls/SOX, and reporting on a single connected platform; teams that prioritize linked reporting and cross-functional collaboration	Audit-native internal audit/SOX lifecycle management; teams that focus on workpapers and testing workflows	Organizations seeking a broader GRC suite that includes audit, risk, compliance, and analytics
Key Strength	Cross-document linking and collaboration; integration with reporting and disclosure workflows	Reputation for audit-native workflows and templates; strong adoption among internal auditors	Established GRC vendor with broad governance and compliance offerings
Key Weakness	Reported usability friction for some users; perception that controls/audit is less native relative to audit-first competitors; potential customization overhead and cost	Cost and procurement overhead noted by some; mixed support anecdotes in community threads	Complexity and implementation effort can be significant depending on selected modules

Direct competitors and their key differentiators
- Optro (AuditBoard)
  - Frequently positioned as an audit-native solution with an engagement- and controls-centric design developed by practitioners.
- Wolters Kluwer TeamMate+
  - Commonly selected by organizations with established audit methodologies and legacy audit tool footprints.
- Archer / MetricStream
  - Often chosen for enterprises that require broad GRC workflow breadth and extensive configuration.
- SAP Audit Management
  - Considered by SAP-centric enterprises for integration into SAP landscapes.
Feature comparison: where Workiva may excel vs lag
- Workiva likely excels
  - Cross-document linking and report tie-outs; collaboration across finance, legal, and audit stakeholders.
- Workiva may lag (relative to audit-native tools)
  - Depth of audit-native workflows for workpapers and daily auditor tasks; some practitioners view competing tools as more focused on the audit lifecycle.
Pricing comparison: value proposition vs alternatives
- Workiva
  - Typically quote-based enterprise subscriptions; public-sector line items indicate meaningful annual costs plus onboarding and enablement services.
- Lower-cost alternatives
  - Some vendors publish self-serve pricing aimed at smaller teams; these may offer limited functionality compared with enterprise suites and require trade-offs.
- Build-your-own
  - Several audit teams report building internal solutions on Microsoft or other stacks; this can reduce vendor spend but increases internal engineering, maintenance, and governance costs.
Customer testimonials comparing Workiva to competitors
- Community examples are mixed; some users prefer Workiva’s interface and linking model, while others prefer Optro/AuditBoard’s audit-native workflows.
Market share and adoption trends
- Industry surveys indicate Workiva, AuditBoard, and spreadsheets remain among the most used tools for SOX and controls work in recent years, suggesting continued incumbency alongside competing solutions.

Aspect

Workiva Audit Management

Optro (formerly AuditBoard)

Diligent (HighBond / Diligent One)

Starting Price

Quote-based; public-sector catalogs show relatively high per-unit pricing for government audit management; enablement services priced separately

Quote-based

Best For

Organizations that want internal audit, controls/SOX, and reporting on a single connected platform; teams that prioritize linked reporting and cross-functional collaboration

Audit-native internal audit/SOX lifecycle management; teams that focus on workpapers and testing workflows

Organizations seeking a broader GRC suite that includes audit, risk, compliance, and analytics

Key Strength

Cross-document linking and collaboration; integration with reporting and disclosure workflows

Reputation for audit-native workflows and templates; strong adoption among internal auditors

Established GRC vendor with broad governance and compliance offerings

Key Weakness

Reported usability friction for some users; perception that controls/audit is less native relative to audit-first competitors; potential customization overhead and cost

Cost and procurement overhead noted by some; mixed support anecdotes in community threads

Complexity and implementation effort can be significant depending on selected modules