Workiva Controls Management

Name: Workiva Controls Management
Brand: Workiva
Rating: 4.5 (2568 reviews)

Workiva Controls Management is a controls and GRC platform that structures controls, risks, testing, attestations, and evidence in a linked data layer to support SOX/ICFR and broader assurance workflows while providing collaboration, workflows, and reporting integration across documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.

Est 2008|Valuation $4.7B|Raised $154M

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

MarketsInternal Controls & Audit Management

Platform CoversRFP Response Management Management Reporting Statutory & Regulatory Reporting

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Workiva vs AuditBoard - Pricing/packaging: AuditBoard markets stakeholder licensing models that can be attractive when many control owners require access. Workiva’s pricing is less transparent publicly; community anecdotes indicate both vendors can be costly and pricing varies by deal. - Usability and workflow: AuditBoard is often described primarily as audit software, while Workiva spans reporting and GRC workflows in addition to controls. This broader scope can provide reporting advantages but may increase learning requirements for some users. - Ongoing maintenance: Some practitioners report that Workiva requires regular customization and administration; other organizations report broad owner adoption and satisfaction with workflows. Workiva vs Archer/MetricStream - Archer and MetricStream are commonly selected for enterprise-wide GRC and IT/cyber risk programs and may exceed the needs of a finance/SOX-focused controls team. - Workiva’s differentiation is connected reporting and linked data across narratives and reports, which some traditional GRC systems do not provide as directly. Competitor perspectives - Competitor materials and positioning often identify Workiva as a strong option for ICFR/SOX scenarios where reporting linkage is important, while emphasizing their own strengths in enterprise configurability and domain breadth.

	Workiva Controls Management	AuditBoard (SOX/Compliance)	RSA Archer / MetricStream (enterprise GRC suites)
Estimated starting price	Not publicly listed; third-party estimates suggest a published annual starting price (vendor quote required)	Not publicly listed; quote-based	Not publicly listed; enterprise quote-based
Typical Use Case	Public companies needing linkage between controls artifacts and reporting; multi-team collaboration	Audit/SOX teams focused on audit and compliance workflows	Large enterprises needing broad GRC coverage and extensive configurability
Key Strength	Linked data across documents and controls data; collaboration and audit trails	Purpose-built audit workflows and stakeholder licensing models	Broad enterprise configurability and coverage across GRC domains
Key Weakness	Learning curve; performance complaints; implementation variability	Pricing opacity; implementation effort required	Significant implementation and administration overhead

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Workiva vs AuditBoard

Pricing/packaging: AuditBoard markets stakeholder licensing models that can be attractive when many control owners require access. Workiva’s pricing is less transparent publicly; community anecdotes indicate both vendors can be costly and pricing varies by deal.
Usability and workflow: AuditBoard is often described primarily as audit software, while Workiva spans reporting and GRC workflows in addition to controls. This broader scope can provide reporting advantages but may increase learning requirements for some users.
Ongoing maintenance: Some practitioners report that Workiva requires regular customization and administration; other organizations report broad owner adoption and satisfaction with workflows.

Workiva vs Archer/MetricStream

Archer and MetricStream are commonly selected for enterprise-wide GRC and IT/cyber risk programs and may exceed the needs of a finance/SOX-focused controls team.
Workiva’s differentiation is connected reporting and linked data across narratives and reports, which some traditional GRC systems do not provide as directly.

Competitor perspectives

Competitor materials and positioning often identify Workiva as a strong option for ICFR/SOX scenarios where reporting linkage is important, while emphasizing their own strengths in enterprise configurability and domain breadth.

	Workiva Controls Management	AuditBoard (SOX/Compliance)	RSA Archer / MetricStream (enterprise GRC suites)
Estimated starting price	Not publicly listed; third-party estimates suggest a published annual starting price (vendor quote required)	Not publicly listed; quote-based	Not publicly listed; enterprise quote-based
Typical Use Case	Public companies needing linkage between controls artifacts and reporting; multi-team collaboration	Audit/SOX teams focused on audit and compliance workflows	Large enterprises needing broad GRC coverage and extensive configurability
Key Strength	Linked data across documents and controls data; collaboration and audit trails	Purpose-built audit workflows and stakeholder licensing models	Broad enterprise configurability and coverage across GRC domains
Key Weakness	Learning curve; performance complaints; implementation variability	Pricing opacity; implementation effort required	Significant implementation and administration overhead