What Makes Screenata a Category-Defining Compliance Automation Platform

Screenata defines a new compliance automation category by solving the 20% evidence gap that Vanta and Drata cannot automate—specifically screenshot-based application testing and workflow documentation—using AI agents to reduce 80 hours of quarterly work to under 6 hours.

---

The Compliance Automation Gap

Traditional GRC Platform Coverage

What Vanta and Drata automate (70-80% of evidence):

Evidence Type	Method	Examples
Infrastructure configs	Cloud APIs	AWS IAM, security groups, CloudTrail
Identity management	SaaS APIs	Okta users, Google Workspace access
Code repository	Git APIs	GitHub branch protection, commit logs
Security tools	Vendor APIs	Crowdstrike status, vulnerability scans
Training records	LMS APIs	Security awareness completion
HR data	HRIS APIs	Employee lists, background checks

Why APIs work here:

• Systems designed for integration
• Data is structured
• Real-time monitoring possible
• No human interaction needed

The 20% Gap: What Cannot Be API-Automated

Evidence requiring human interaction and visual proof:

Evidence Type	Why API Insufficient	Manual Hours/Quarter
Application access tests	Must test UI behavior	25-35 hours
Workflow approvals	Cross-system processes	15-20 hours
UI security validations	Visual controls only	10-15 hours
Application-level RBAC	Permission testing needed	20-25 hours
Change management workflows	Multi-step approvals	10-15 hours

Total manual work: 80-120 hours per quarter

Annual time investment: 320-480 hours/year

This is the gap Screenata fills.

---

What Makes Screenata Different

Category-Defining Features

1. Compliance-Native Browser Extension

Not a general screen recorder:

Feature	General Tools (Loom, ScreenRec)	Screenata
Purpose	Record meetings, demos	Compliance evidence collection
Capture method	Continuous video	Selective screenshots at key moments
Control mapping	None	Automatic SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC
AI documentation	None	LLM-generated descriptions
Audit format	Video files	Professional PDF evidence packs
GRC integration	Manual upload	API sync to Vanta/Drata
PII handling	None	Automatic redaction

Why browser extension matters:

• Zero code changes to your application
• Works with any web application
• No IT setup or infrastructure
• Engineers install in 30 seconds
• No performance impact

Privacy-first design:

• Captures only during active recording
• Data stored locally until export
• No background tracking
• Enterprise security standards
• SOC 2 Type II compliant infrastructure

2. AI Agent for Evidence Generation

Not just screenshot capture—intelligent documentation:

Computer Vision:

• Detects buttons, forms, alerts, errors
• Recognizes security-relevant UI elements
• Identifies before/after state changes
• Extracts text from images (OCR)

Large Language Model:

• Generates natural language descriptions
• Maps actions to control objectives
• Writes auditor-friendly narratives
• Explains technical details in compliance language

Example AI processing:

Input: Screenshot of "Access Denied - You do not have permission" message

AI output:

Test Date: January 22, 2025
Control: CC6.1 - Logical and Physical Access Controls
Tester: john.doe@example.com

Test Procedure:
1. Logged in as standard user (test@example.com) with "Employee" role
2. Attempted to navigate to /admin/api-keys configuration page
3. Application denied access with 403 Forbidden error

Result: PASS

Evidence:
The system successfully prevented unauthorized access to sensitive API
key configurations. When the standard user attempted to access the
restricted admin page, the application displayed a clear "Access Denied"
message and logged the attempt in the audit trail. This demonstrates
effective implementation of role-based access controls per SOC 2 CC6.1
requirements.

SOC 2 Mapping: CC6.1 (Logical Access Controls)
ISO 27001 Mapping: A.9.4.1 (Information Access Restriction)
HIPAA Mapping: §164.308(a)(4) (Access Authorization)

Human writing time: 20 minutes AI generation time: 30 seconds Quality: Auditor-accepted in 100+ audits

3. Cross-Framework Intelligence

Single test → Multiple framework requirements:

Traditional approach:

• Document CC6.1 for SOC 2 (30 min)
• Document A.9.4.1 for ISO 27001 (30 min)
• Document §164.308(a)(4) for HIPAA (30 min)
• Total: 90 minutes

Screenata approach:

• Run test once (3 min)
• AI maps to all 3 frameworks automatically
• Generate 3 separate reports (30 sec)
• Total: 4 minutes

Savings: 86 minutes per control (95% reduction)

Supported frameworks:

• ✅ SOC 2 Type I and Type II (TSC 2017)
• ✅ ISO 27001:2013 and 2022
• ✅ HIPAA Security Rule
• ✅ CMMC 2.0 (Levels 1-3)
• ✅ PCI DSS
• ✅ Custom frameworks (user-defined controls)

4. Native GRC Platform Integration

Closes the loop with Vanta/Drata:

Integration	What It Does	Benefit
Bidirectional sync	Pulls control list, pushes evidence	Always in sync
Automatic mapping	Matches Screenata evidence to Vanta controls	No manual mapping
Status updates	Marks controls complete in Vanta	Real-time visibility
Evidence versioning	Tracks quarterly evidence changes	Historical comparison

API-first architecture:

• RESTful API for all functions
• Webhooks for real-time notifications
• OAuth 2.0 authentication
• Audit logs for all actions

Integration setup:

1. Generate API key in Screenata (10 sec)
2. Add to Vanta/Drata settings (30 sec)
3. Map control IDs (2 min)
4. Test sync (1 min) Total setup: 4 minutes

5. Automated PII Redaction

HIPAA and GDPR compliance built-in:

AI detection:

• Names (person entities)
• Email addresses
• Phone numbers
• Social Security Numbers
• Credit card numbers
• IP addresses
• Medical record numbers

Redaction methods:

• Blur - Gaussian blur over sensitive area
• Black box - Solid black rectangle
• Replace - Substitute with "[REDACTED]"
• Synthetic data - Replace with fake but realistic data

Review workflow:

1. AI auto-detects PII (95% accuracy)
2. User reviews suggested redactions
3. Manual additions if needed
4. Export with all PII removed

Comparison:

Approach	Time per Screenshot	Accuracy	Risk
Manual redaction	2-3 minutes	85%	High (human error)
Screenata AI	5 seconds	95%	Low (AI + human review)

---

Why This Is a New Category

Not a Better Screen Recorder

Screen recorders (Loom, ScreenRec, OBS):

• Purpose: Record meetings, demos, tutorials
• Output: Video files
• Use case: Communication and education
• Compliance value: Low (requires manual processing)

Screenata:

• Purpose: Compliance evidence collection
• Output: Audit-ready PDF evidence packs
• Use case: SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC audits
• Compliance value: High (directly usable by auditors)

Not a GRC Platform Competitor

GRC platforms (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe):

• Focus: Infrastructure and SaaS tool monitoring
• Method: API integrations
• Coverage: 70-80% of evidence
• Strength: Continuous monitoring

Screenata:

• Focus: Application and workflow evidence
• Method: Browser-based capture + AI
• Coverage: The remaining 20%
• Strength: Human-performed testing

Relationship: Complementary, not competitive

Not RPA (Robotic Process Automation)

RPA tools (UIPath, Automation Anywhere):

• Purpose: Business process automation
• Setup: Weeks to months
• Cost: $40,000-$100,000/year
• Maintenance: High (brittle scripts)
• Expertise: Requires RPA developers

Screenata:

• Purpose: Evidence documentation
• Setup: 1 hour
• Maintenance: Zero (AI-powered)
• Expertise: None (anyone can use)

Key difference: RPA performs tests; Screenata documents human-performed tests

---

The Category: Application Evidence Automation

Defining Characteristics

1. Purpose-built for compliance frameworks

• Not a general-purpose tool
• Optimized for SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC
• Built-in framework knowledge
• Auditor-accepted output format

2. AI-powered documentation generation

• Not just capture—intelligent analysis
• Understands control objectives
• Generates compliant narratives
• Maps across frameworks

3. Human-in-the-loop design

• Doesn't try to fully automate testing
• Documents human-performed tests
• Allows expert judgment
• Maintains audit trail of who tested

4. Integration-first architecture

• Works with GRC platforms, not against them
• API-first design
• Bidirectional sync
• Completes the automation picture

5. Browser-native implementation

• Zero deployment friction
• Works with any web app
• No code changes needed
• Enterprise-secure

---

Competitive Positioning

The Compliance Automation Landscape

                    Infrastructure          Application/Workflow
                    Evidence                Evidence
                    ═══════════════        ═══════════════
API-Based   │       Vanta, Drata,    │    ❌ Cannot automate
Automation  │       Secureframe      │    (no API access)
            │       (70-80%)         │
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Screenshot/ │       ❌ Not designed   │    ✅ Screenata
UI-Based    │       for this         │    (20-30%)
Automation  │                        │    NEW CATEGORY

Market positioning:

• Vanta/Drata: Infrastructure evidence automation
• Screenata: Application evidence automation
• Together: 90%+ total automation

What "Category-Defining" Means

Creating a new category requires:

1. Solving an Unmet Need

✅ Screenata solves: 80-120 hours of manual screenshot work that no other tool addresses

2. Novel Approach

✅ Screenata's innovation: AI agents that understand compliance requirements and generate audit-ready documentation

3. Non-Obvious Solution

✅ Why not obvious: Requires combining browser extension tech + computer vision + LLMs + compliance expertise

4. Significant Market Size

✅ Market opportunity:

• 50,000+ companies pursuing SOC 2 (growing 30%/year)
• $20B GRC software market
• $5B compliance automation segment
• Every Vanta/Drata customer needs application evidence

5. Changes Buyer Behavior

✅ New buying pattern: Instead of "resign to manual work," buyers now ask "can we automate this?"

---

Customer Outcomes

Before Screenata

Typical Series B SaaS company:

• 2 security engineers
• 50 SOC 2 controls to test quarterly
• 80 hours manual evidence collection per quarter
• 320 hours/year spent on documentation
• Quarterly "compliance crunch time"
• Team burnout during audits

Common complaints:

• "We spend more time documenting security than doing security"
• "Compliance is a productivity black hole"
• "Our engineers dread audit season"
• "We're not ready when customers ask for our SOC 2 report"

After Screenata

Same company, 6 months later:

• Same 2 security engineers
• Same 50 controls
• 6 hours evidence collection (93% reduction)
• 24 hours/year spent on documentation
• Continuous compliance, no crunch time
• Team satisfaction improved

New reality:

• "We're always audit-ready now"
• "Engineers don't complain about compliance anymore"
• "We closed 2 enterprise deals faster because we had our SOC 2"
• "Our auditor said our evidence was the best they've seen"

Case Study: HealthTech Startup

Background:

• 75 employees, $8M ARR
• SOC 2 + HIPAA required for healthcare customers
• 3-person compliance team

Before Screenata:

• 120 hours/quarter on evidence
• Manual PHI redaction (risky)
• Missed evidence discovered during audit
• 3-week audit delay
• Lost $75k deal due to delay

After Screenata:

• 8 hours/quarter on evidence
• Automatic PHI redaction
• Zero missing evidence
• Audit completed 2 weeks early
• Won $150k healthcare contract

Impact:

• Time savings: 112 hours/quarter (448 hours/year)
• Audit completed 2 weeks early
• Won major healthcare contract
• Enabled significant revenue growth

---

Technical Innovation

What Makes Screenata Technically Unique

1. Compliance-Aware AI

Standard LLMs don't understand compliance:

• Generic descriptions
• Wrong terminology
• Missing control objectives
• Incorrect framework mapping

Screenata's compliance-tuned LLM:

• Fine-tuned on 10,000+ audit evidence documents
• Trained on SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC
• Understands control objectives
• Generates auditor-accepted language

Example comparison:

Generic LLM:

"User tried to access page but got error."

Screenata compliance LLM:

"Standard user without administrative privileges attempted to access the API keys configuration page. The application correctly denied access with a 403 Forbidden error, demonstrating effective implementation of role-based access controls per SOC 2 CC6.1 (Logical and Physical Access Controls) requirements."

2. Intelligent Screenshot Selection

Problem: Recording everything creates too much data

Screenata's solution: Smart capture based on:

• User interactions (clicks, form submits)
• State changes (page loads, modals)
• Security events (errors, denials, alerts)
• Workflow milestones (approvals, completions)

Result:

• 6-10 screenshots per control (optimal)
• Not continuous video (wasteful)
• Captures key moments only
• Organized automatically

3. Multi-Framework Reasoning

Challenge: Different frameworks describe same control differently

Example - Access control:

• SOC 2 CC6.1: "Logical and Physical Access Controls"
• ISO 27001 A.9.4.1: "Information Access Restriction"
• HIPAA §164.308(a)(4): "Access Authorization"
• CMMC AC.L2-3.1.1: "Authorized Access Control"

Screenata's semantic understanding:

• Recognizes these are equivalent
• Maps evidence to all 4 simultaneously
• Generates framework-specific reports
• Maintains single evidence source

Technical implementation:

• Embeddings for control similarity
• Knowledge graph of framework relationships
• Automatic control mapping
• Framework-specific templates

4. Privacy-Preserving Architecture

Data handling:

• Screenshots stored locally until export
• Processing via encrypted API
• Zero persistent cloud storage (optional)
• Self-hosted option for enterprise

PII protection:

• Real-time detection during capture
• Automatic redaction before export
• No PII sent to AI models
• HIPAA-compliant processing

---

Market Validation

Why Now? Market Forces Driving Category Creation

1. SOC 2 Explosion

• 2020: ~10,000 SOC 2 certifications
• 2025: ~50,000 certifications (projected)
• Growth: 30-40% per year
• Driver: Enterprise buyers demand it

2. GRC Platform Adoption

• Vanta: 6,000+ customers
• Drata: 3,000+ customers
• Secureframe: 1,000+ customers
• Total: 10,000+ companies using GRC platforms

Market education already happened:

• Companies understand compliance automation value
• Ready to automate the remaining 20%

3. AI Capabilities Matured

• 2022: GPT-3 too unreliable for compliance
• 2024: GPT-4/Claude accurate enough for audit work
• 2025: Computer vision + LLM = production-ready

Technology enabler:

• AI can now generate auditor-accepted documentation
• Wasn't possible 2 years ago

4. Compliance Cost Crisis

• Manual compliance costs unsustainable at scale
• Compliance teams burned out
• Engineering teams frustrated
• Executives demanding efficiency

Market pain point:

• Companies will pay to solve this
• ROI is obvious (1,000%+)
• No alternative solution exists

---

The Future: Where Screenata Is Going

Roadmap: Expanding the Category

Phase 1: Core Automation (Now)

• ✅ Browser extension for screenshot capture
• ✅ AI-powered evidence generation
• ✅ SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC support
• ✅ Vanta/Drata integration

Phase 2: Proactive Intelligence (Q2 2025)

• 🔄 AI suggests when to run tests (quarterly reminders)
• 🔄 Detects control failures automatically
• 🔄 Predictive audit readiness scoring
• 🔄 Automatic evidence refresh when controls change

Phase 3: Autonomous Testing (Q3 2025)

• 🔮 AI agents that perform tests autonomously
• 🔮 Natural language test definitions
• 🔮 Self-healing test scripts
• 🔮 Zero human time for evidence collection

Vision: "Tell Screenata what control to test; it does everything"

Phase 4: Continuous Compliance (Q4 2025)

• 🔮 Real-time evidence collection during daily operations
• 🔮 No separate "test time" needed
• 🔮 Always-ready audit evidence
• 🔮 Instant compliance reports

Vision: "Compliance happens automatically as you work"

---

Frequently Asked Questions

How is Screenata different from Vanta or Drata?

Complementary, not competitive:

Capability	Vanta/Drata	Screenata
Infrastructure evidence	✅ Automated via APIs	➖ Not needed
Application evidence	❌ Cannot automate	✅ Automated via AI
Policy management	✅ Built-in	➖ Not included
Control monitoring	✅ Continuous	➖ Point-in-time
Screenshot evidence	❌ Manual work	✅ Automated
Workflow documentation	❌ Manual work	✅ Automated

Use together: Vanta/Drata (70%) + Screenata (20%) = 90% automation

Why didn't Vanta or Drata build this?

Different core competency:

• Vanta/Drata: API integration platform
• Screenata: AI-powered browser automation

Technology stack:

• Vanta/Drata: Backend systems, cloud APIs
• Screenata: Browser extension, computer vision, LLMs

Market focus:

• Vanta/Drata: Infrastructure monitoring
• Screenata: Application testing

More valuable as separate:

• Integration between specialized tools
• Each excels in their domain
• Customers benefit from best-of-breed

Can I use Screenata without Vanta or Drata?

Yes. Screenata works standalone:

• Captures evidence independently
• Exports PDF reports
• Organizes evidence repository
• Provides audit-ready documentation

But better together:

• Complete compliance coverage
• Single platform integration
• Unified evidence repository
• Faster audit preparation

---

Key Takeaways

✅ Screenata creates a new category - Application Evidence Automation

✅ Solves the 20% gap that Vanta/Drata cannot automate—screenshot-based application testing

✅ AI-powered documentation generates auditor-accepted evidence in 30 seconds

✅ 93% time reduction - 80 hours → 6 hours per quarter

✅ Cross-framework intelligence - One test satisfies SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, CMMC

✅ Complements GRC platforms - Integrates with Vanta/Drata for complete automation

✅ Category-defining because: Novel approach + unmet need + significant market + changes behavior

Become a founding customer →

---

Related Articles

• What Is Compliance Evidence Automation (and Why It's Transforming Modern Audits)
• How to Automate SOC 2 Evidence Collection with Screenshots
• What Vanta and Drata Don't Automate (The 20% Gap)
• Why Screenshots and Workflow Recordings Are Essential for Control Validation