Hidden Costs and Misaligned Expectations
1. Compliance ≠ Security
One of the biggest misconceptions about compliance automation platforms is that they provide security. In reality, these tools focus on managing compliance-related tasks rather than securing the company’s assets. They act as project management tools for compliance rather than offering continuous security monitoring or operational security measures.
Startups often assume that adopting a compliance platform means their security posture is covered. However, these platforms only help check the necessary compliance boxes—they do not actively protect against threats or prevent security breaches. The end result? Many startups end up with compliance on paper but lack real security implementation. This creates:
- A false sense of security, where everything looks compliant but isn’t truly effective
- An illusion of automation, requiring constant manual oversight
- Increased IT and security workload instead of reducing it
- Extra costs from additional security tools (e.g., MDM, vulnerability scanning) and services (e.g., penetration testing).
2. The Hidden Costs of Integration
Compliance automation platforms typically offer integrations with third-party security tools. However, these integrations assume that the startup already has these security tools in place. In reality, to make full use of the platform, startups may need to purchase additional security software, such as:
- MDM (Mobile Device Management) systems for IT asset management
- Security awareness training tools for employees
- Cloud infrastructure monitoring tools
- Vulnerability scanning
- Static code analysis tools
These extra tools significantly increase costs, making compliance automation solution far from self-sufficient.
3. One-Size-Fits-All Doesn’t Work for Security
Compliance platforms apply a one-size-fits-all approach, offering the same security controls to every customer. Startups often don’t realize it’s entirely their responsibility to tailor these controls to fit their unique needs, including:
- Industry regulations
- Data sensitivity and risk factors
- Customer and contractual requirements
- Technology stack and infrastructure
Without customization, startups end up implementing a generic framework that may not align with their actual security needs. This results in extra manual work, unnecessary expenses, and misalignment with auditor expectations—often leading to last-minute audit surprises.
4. Most Compliance Platforms Are Designed for SOC 2, Not ISO 27001
One major issue with compliance automation platforms is that most are designed with SOC 2 in mind. SOC 2 is a security framework focused on demonstrating effective controls over data protection, typically for SaaS companies. It is checklist-driven and primarily evaluates whether a company has implemented basic security measures.
However, ISO 27001 is a more process-driven framework that requires:
- A formalized Information Security Management System (ISMS)
- Detailed risk assessments and treatment plans
- Comprehensive documentation of security policies and procedures
- An internal audit conducted by an independent party
5. The Cost of Compliance Beyond the Platform
Many compliance frameworks require additional steps that compliance automation platforms do not fully cover. For example:
- ISO 27001 requires an internal audit, which must be conducted by someone without a conflict of interest (i.e., not involved in daily security operations). Many startups lack the internal resources for this, forcing them to outsource the audit at an extra cost.
- SOC 2 heavily depends on application security, which is best assessed through penetration testing, another costly and often overlooked requirement.
These external services can significantly increase compliance costs beyond the initial software subscription.
6. Customer Support ≠ Security Expertise
Compliance automation platforms often promote their customer support and account management as key benefits. However, these customer success teams are not security experts. They can help with platform navigation and troubleshooting but are not equipped to:
- Guide startups through security strategy and implementation
- Offer tailored recommendations based on risk profile
- Provide expert insights during audits
This gap in expertise often leaves startups struggling to bridge the knowledge gap on their own, adding more time and effort to the compliance process.
7. Lack of accountability
Compliance platforms improve efficiency, but compliance itself isn’t just a software problem—it’s an expertise and accountability challenge. No tool can replace clear ownership of the process.
In many startups, this responsibility falls on the CTO, pulling them away from core priorities like scaling engineering teams, shipping features, and supporting customers. As a result:
- CTOs get bogged down with undifferentiated compliance tasks
- Vendors juggle multiple security tools (MDM, EDR, CSPM, SAST, etc.)
- Managing stakeholders—pentesters, auditors, and certifiers—becomes an ongoing burden
Conclusion: Compliance Automation is a Starting Point, Not a Solution
Compliance automation tools are essential for streamlining workflows, but they don’t replace the entire process. Startups must account for hidden costs and additional security investments to:
✅ Implement real security measures beyond just meeting compliance requirements
✅ Invest in security tools not included in the platform
✅ Tailor their security program to their specific risks and needs
✅ Plan for unexpected audit and compliance costs that automation won’t cover
Before adopting a compliance platform, startups should assess their true security needs and budget for the extra effort and expenses. Otherwise, they risk overspending on compliance that is performative rather than protective.
.png)
.png)
