Vanta vs Oneleet vs Screenata

Vanta and Oneleet both get startups to SOC 2, but they represent opposite instincts about what compliance is for. Vanta treats it as a documentation-and-monitoring problem solved with the broadest integration catalog and a mature dashboard. Oneleet, YC-backed (S22) and founded by a pentester, treats a certificate as worthless if the security underneath is theater, so it bundles a real penetration test and hands-on security work with the platform. The axis is breadth-and-maturity versus security-substance, paperwork automation on one side, actual attack-surface reduction on the other.

Vanta wins on ecosystem and predictability: the largest connector library automates more evidence, and near-universal recognition means auditors and enterprise buyers already trust it. Oneleet wins for founders who want the badge to mean something, bundling pentest and security services in one vendor is efficient and pushes against compliance theater, which resonates with technical teams. The tradeoff is scope: Vanta is deeper and wider as a GRC platform, while Oneleet deliberately couples security work to compliance, so you're buying a different bundle rather than a strictly bigger one.

Screenata is neither the broadest dashboard nor a security-services bundle, it's the agent that operates the compliance program itself. Vera scans your infrastructure, writes grounded policies, and records evidence while your team works, filing it as cryptographically signed artifacts, integrating the pentest report you obtain rather than performing it. Pick Vanta for ecosystem breadth, Oneleet if you want real security work and a pentest bundled, and Screenata if you'd rather an agent run SOC 2 from Slack, email, and PRs for $5,988/year per framework ($499/mo), with evidence any auditor can verify independently.