Workiva Policy Management

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

Workiva Policy Management is a policy and procedure authoring and lifecycle workflow solution built on the Workiva connected reporting and GRC platform that provides collaborative document editing, structured data objects and linking to maintain content consistency, plus audit trail and workflow controls.

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

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

MarketsInternal Controls & Audit Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Workiva vs AuditBoard: Practitioner discussions often portray Workiva as stronger in reporting and collaborative document workflows, while AuditBoard is perceived as stronger for audit- and GRC-centric operational workflows. Pricing comparisons vary by procurement scope and timing. - Workiva vs ServiceNow: ServiceNow is often selected when policy lifecycle must be tightly integrated with enterprise workflows (tasks, catalog, HR/IT processes) and when the Now Platform is already in use. ServiceNow implementations frequently require significant platform administration and integration investment. - Situations where Workiva may provide advantage: when policy management must be tightly connected to formal disclosures, audit deliverables, and regulator-focused reporting artifacts, Workiva’s linking and reporting capabilities can be beneficial.

	Workiva Policy Management	AuditBoard (Policy + GRC)	ServiceNow GRC (Policy & Compliance)
Starting Price	Not public; directional third-party estimates exist	Not public; quote-based pricing	Not public; quote-based pricing; often per-user or per-module licensing
Recommended for	Enterprises that require connected documents, structured data objects, and reporting across finance/audit/risk/ESG	Audit and risk teams seeking a GRC-native suite with strong audit/SOX workflows	Organizations standardized on the Now Platform needing workflow and enterprise service management integration
Key Strength	Document and data linking, collaboration, and reporting outputs	Purpose-built audit/SOX/risk workflows; broad adoption in audit organizations	Workflow depth and enterprise integrations across IT/HR/Service operations
Key Weakness	Reporting-centric orientation may limit out-of-the-box day-to-day GRC workflow depth; learning curve and some performance reports	Pricing and implementation effort can be substantial; module packaging varies	Complexity and maintenance burden; licensing and implementation can be resource-intensive

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Workiva vs AuditBoard: Practitioner discussions often portray Workiva as stronger in reporting and collaborative document workflows, while AuditBoard is perceived as stronger for audit- and GRC-centric operational workflows. Pricing comparisons vary by procurement scope and timing.
Workiva vs ServiceNow: ServiceNow is often selected when policy lifecycle must be tightly integrated with enterprise workflows (tasks, catalog, HR/IT processes) and when the Now Platform is already in use. ServiceNow implementations frequently require significant platform administration and integration investment.
Situations where Workiva may provide advantage: when policy management must be tightly connected to formal disclosures, audit deliverables, and regulator-focused reporting artifacts, Workiva’s linking and reporting capabilities can be beneficial.

	Workiva Policy Management	AuditBoard (Policy + GRC)	ServiceNow GRC (Policy & Compliance)
Starting Price	Not public; directional third-party estimates exist	Not public; quote-based pricing	Not public; quote-based pricing; often per-user or per-module licensing
Recommended for	Enterprises that require connected documents, structured data objects, and reporting across finance/audit/risk/ESG	Audit and risk teams seeking a GRC-native suite with strong audit/SOX workflows	Organizations standardized on the Now Platform needing workflow and enterprise service management integration
Key Strength	Document and data linking, collaboration, and reporting outputs	Purpose-built audit/SOX/risk workflows; broad adoption in audit organizations	Workflow depth and enterprise integrations across IT/HR/Service operations
Key Weakness	Reporting-centric orientation may limit out-of-the-box day-to-day GRC workflow depth; learning curve and some performance reports	Pricing and implementation effort can be substantial; module packaging varies	Complexity and maintenance burden; licensing and implementation can be resource-intensive