Table of contents
- What Is Compliance Automation?
- How Compliance Automation Works
- Key Benefits of Automated Compliance
- Essential Features of Compliance Automation Platforms
- Compliance Workflow Automation: What You Can Automate
- Top Compliance Automation Tools and Solutions
- Choosing the Right Compliance Automation Solution for Your Organization
- Where Orca Fits in an Automated Compliance Program
- Frequently Asked Questions About Compliance Automation
Key Takeaways
- Compliance automation turns a written control into a scheduled test. Software collects the evidence, checks it against the control, maps the result to every framework that needs it, and stores the outcome with a timestamp.
- Different obligations sit under the word compliance. Regulations create legal requirements. SOC 2 is an attestation engagement based on the AICPA Trust Services Criteria. PCI DSS is an industry standard whose compliance programs are enforced by payment brands and acquirers.
- NIST’s Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL) is what makes automated assessment exchangeable. Its eight models carry a control from catalog to profile to system security plan to assessment result, with traceability back to the original definition.
- Automation can cover much of the collection, testing, mapping, and reporting work. Scoping, control design, risk acceptance, certain forms of evidence, and the assessor’s opinion still require people.
- Five platform categories split this market, separated by which of those four steps each one performs. Orca covers the collection and testing half for technical cloud controls, checking your estate continuously against more than 150 frameworks and CIS benchmarks.
Compliance automation is the practice of turning written control obligations into scheduled machine tests. Those tests collect the evidence, check it, and record the result with a timestamp. That can replace much of the manual work of gathering screenshots and spreadsheets ahead of an audit. The obligation does not change, but the artifact you hand the assessor does.
This article is about mechanizing the proof of a control. It skips the question of which regulations apply to your industry, and it is not a shortlist of cloud compliance solutions for an enterprise estate. The subject here is the machinery, and the line where the machinery stops.
An assessor sends a request list. An engineer opens a console, captures a screenshot, and drops the file in a folder. That artifact proves one setting was correct on one day. It says nothing about the other 364.
What Is Compliance Automation?
Compliance automation is software that performs the evidence work in a compliance program. It collects the data a control depends on and tests that data against the control’s criteria. Depending on the platform, the result can then be mapped across applicable frameworks and incorporated into compliance reporting. A control stating that access must be reviewed can become a set of queries and evidence checks showing who has access, whether the review occurred, who approved it, and when.
Cloud estates make a natural starting point, because provider APIs expose control state on demand. The discipline is wider than cloud compliance alone. A payment requirement, a service organization report, and a tax filing are all obligations with evidence behind them, and none of them is cloud-shaped.
Regulations, Frameworks, and Contracts Are Three Different Obligations
Teams talk about compliance as one thing. Three kinds of obligation sit underneath the word, and they behave differently when something changes.
A regulation is law. A federal agency enforces HIPAA, and its text changes only when a rulemaking process changes it. Non-compliance there is a legal matter rather than a commercial one.
A framework is voluntary until a customer asks for it. SOC 2 rests on the AICPA’s 2017 Trust Services Criteria, revised in 2022, and reports against five categories. Security is the only one that appears in every engagement, and the output is a practitioner’s report rather than a certificate.
A contract is the third kind, and it is the one teams misclassify. PCI DSS is not a law. The PCI Security Standards Council is explicit. Compliance and validation sit “at the discretion of organizations that manage compliance programs, such as a payment brand, acquirer, or other entity.”
Regulatory compliance automation therefore tracks a source that a regulator can amend. Framework and contract obligations move on a publication cycle, or when a customer renegotiates. Those different clocks are why one obligation library rarely serves all three. They also separate the laws that apply to you from the standards most cloud programs are held to.
How Compliance Automation Works
Compliance automation works by expressing a control as data. The test runs against the system that holds the fact, then stores the outcome as a machine-readable finding. Every step in that chain has a published format behind it.
From Control Statement to Machine-Readable Test
The Open Security Controls Assessment Language (OSCAL) is the NIST-led project that supplies those formats. It publishes control information in XML, JSON, and YAML across three layers: control, implementation, and assessment. Eight models sit across those layers, and each one builds on the models in the layers below it.
The control layer holds the Catalog model, which expresses any framework’s controls in a standard structure. It also holds the Profile model, which selects and tailors those controls into a baseline. A newer Control Mapping model records how controls in one framework relate to controls in another. It types each relationship as equivalent-to, subset-of, intersects-with, or no-relationship.
The implementation layer carries the System Security Plan and Component Definition models. The assessment layer carries Assessment Plan, Assessment Results, and Plan of Action and Milestones.
A control statement in a catalog carries parameters, and a profile sets the parameter value your baseline uses. Only then does a test have a specific thing to check. Each model imports the artifact it uses, so a finding traces back to the exact control definition it came from. That traceability is what makes an automated result auditable rather than merely fast.
Continuous Monitoring Versus the Point-in-Time Sample
A point-in-time audit samples. The assessor draws a set of items from a population, tests those items, and forms a view of the whole. Continuous compliance automation does not change that method. It changes the population the sample comes from.
FedRAMP is the clearest sign that regulators, not only vendors, treat machine-generated evidence as acceptable. FedRAMP 20x built its Low pilot around Key Security Indicators, and received 26 complete packages between 30 May and 18 August 2025. The program’s own recap concluded that these indicators can demonstrate security posture in near real time, replacing static yearly manual assessments. Its core principles put it plainly: “Continuous evidence of what is happening is stronger than a policy saying it should happen.”
The program is now in Phase 3, with full certification rules finalized for Class A, Class B, and Class C. It stops accepting new Rev5 certifications on 11 June 2027. Those dates matter to anyone selling to a federal agency, and FedRAMP has moved them before.
In a cloud estate, that collection layer is usually posture management used for compliance. It reads configuration state on a schedule, not in the week the assessor arrives.
Key Benefits of Automated Compliance
The benefit of security compliance automation is not speed. It is that the evidence exists before anyone asks for it, in a form that shows when each fact was true.
- Evidence accumulates instead of being assembled. A test that runs daily produces roughly 90 dated records in a quarter. A gap shows the date it opened and the date it closed.
- Drift surfaces between audits. A misconfiguration that reappears after remediation becomes a failed test that day, rather than a finding eleven months later.
- One result answers several frameworks. Control catalogs share their technical controls. One access-review record may support evidence requirements across PCI DSS, SOC 2, and ISO/IEC 27001, depending on scope and control mapping.
- The sample comes from a complete population. The assessor still selects what to test, but selects it from every record in the period instead of from whatever someone captured.
- Some requirements no longer accept manual work. PCI DSS v4.0.1 Requirement 10.4.1.1 requires automated mechanisms to review audit logs, and it became mandatory on 31 March 2025.
Cost savings follow from those five, and they are the weakest reason to do this. A team that automates collection still spends time on scoping, exceptions, and interviews. What changes is where the hours go: off evidence gathering, and onto the judgment calls that need a person to make them. It also changes who gets interrupted, since engineers stop being pulled off work to screenshot a console.
Essential Features of Compliance Automation Platforms
Feature lists in this category read alike. Sort each feature by which step of the cycle it serves, and the real differences between products appear quickly.
- A control catalog you can parameterize. The platform should hold the control text and let you set your own baseline values, the way an OSCAL profile tailors a catalog.
- Collectors for the systems that hold the truth. Cloud APIs, identity providers, ticketing systems, code repositories, and HR systems each answer a different set of controls.
- Tests with explicit pass and fail criteria. If you cannot read the query behind a green check, you cannot defend the result in a room with an assessor.
- Cross-framework mapping. One finding should attach to every control it satisfies, with the relationship between those controls recorded rather than implied.
- Exception handling with an expiry date. Every program carries accepted risks, and an exception without an end date quietly becomes permanent.
- Retention across the full audit period, exportable in a format your assessor will work from.
Cloud coverage is where these products separate. A platform that reads your estate directly can test a configuration. One that reads a summary from another tool repeats what that tool found. If your controls span several accounts and providers, check collection depth against your multi-cloud compliance requirements before you shortlist anything.
Compliance Workflow Automation: What You Can Automate
Compliance workflow automation can reduce manual work across four recurring parts of the compliance cycle: collection, testing, mapping, and reporting. The extent of automation depends on the control and the system holding the evidence. Scoping, risk judgment, and the independent assessment remain human responsibilities.
The Four Automatable Steps
- Collection. The platform queries the system that holds the fact and stores the answer with the time it was read.
- Testing. The platform compares that stored answer against the control’s criteria and returns a pass or a fail.
- Mapping. The result attaches to every control, in every framework, that this test satisfies.
- Reporting. Results for a period render into the format the assessor works from, with the population and the exceptions visible.
An assessor asks for proof that user access was reviewed. Behind that request sits PCI DSS compliance Requirement 7.2.4 in v4.0.1. It requires a review of all user accounts and related access privileges at least once every six months. That requirement is one of the future-dated additions that became mandatory on 31 March 2025.
PCI compliance automation handles that request in four moves. A collector pulls every user account from the identity provider and every role binding from the in-scope cloud accounts. The test checks each user account for a review record inside the last six months, with a named approver attached. Application and system accounts run on their own cadence under Requirement 7.2.5.1.
The mapping layer then attaches the same passing result to the equivalent SOC 2 and ISO 27001 access controls. The report renders the population, the tested set, and the exceptions.
What comes out is a dated record for every account in scope. What used to come out was a console screenshot taken on the day someone remembered to take it. That change in the artifact is the point of automating audit evidence collection, and it is separate from any claim about doing the work faster.
What Stays Human
Four things resist automation, and none of them is a tooling gap waiting to close.
Scope comes first. A person decides which systems sit inside the cardholder data environment, and every downstream test inherits that decision. Get the boundary wrong and the automation is precise about the wrong estate.
Control design and risk acceptance come next. A machine tests the control you wrote. It will not tell you the control is weak, that a compensating control has stopped compensating, or that an exception should never have been granted.
Some evidence has no machine-readable source at all. A signed policy, a completed background check, a board minute, and a contract clause each come from a person. A platform can store them without producing them.
FedRAMP reached the same conclusion in its Low pilot. One of its published lessons is that independent assessment must move beyond control-by-control audits to evaluate security decisions.
The independent opinion remains outside the automation platform. The assessor selects the sample, performs the procedures, and signs. A SOC 2 engagement produces that practitioner’s opinion. No platform can hand you a SOC 2 report, however complete its evidence.
Top Compliance Automation Tools and Solutions
No single product performs all four steps well, and vendors in each category describe the other three as adjacent. Sorting the market by which steps a category performs is more useful than sorting it by the label a vendor claims.
Five Categories, Not One Market
| Category | Collects evidence | Tests controls | Maps frameworks | Produces audit reports | Where it stops |
| Audit-readiness and GRC platforms | Partial | Partial | Yes | Yes | Reads other systems through connectors, so test depth follows the integration |
| Cloud security posture platforms | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Covers technical controls, not policies, training records, or vendor agreements |
| Policy-as-code engines | No | Yes | No | No | Decides against data you supply, inside a pipeline you build and run |
| Configuration and benchmark scanners | Yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Tests a host, image, or cluster against a benchmark, not a whole framework |
| Workflow and evidence orchestration | Partial | No | No | Partial | Routes, assigns, and tracks the work without judging the result |
Audit-readiness platforms are the category behind the phrase soc 2 compliance automation. They hold the control catalog, run the attestation and policy workflow, map results across frameworks, and generate the package an auditor reviews. Their weakness is depth. Everything they know about your infrastructure arrives through a connector, so a control tested against a summary is only as good as that summary.
Cloud security posture platforms sit at the opposite end. They read the estate themselves, so their tests are direct, and they carry framework mappings out of the box. They hold no policy library and no training records, which is why they feed a compliance program rather than replace one.
Policy-as-code engines are narrower still. Policy as code with Open Policy Agent gives you a decision engine and a language for writing rules. It leaves collection, mapping, and reporting to whatever you build around it.
The last two categories are the ones teams underestimate. Benchmark scanners answer one specific question, such as whether a cluster passes a CIS control. For many platform teams, automating the CIS Kubernetes benchmarks is the first automated control they ship.
Workflow and evidence orchestration tools move requests, assign owners, and chase deadlines. They never decide whether a control passed, and a program that buys one expecting testing has bought a routing layer.
Choosing the Right Compliance Automation Solution for Your Organization
Start from the gap rather than the category. Write down which of the four steps your program already performs reliably, then shop only for the ones it does not.
- Which step is failing? If the evidence exists but nobody can assemble a report, you have a reporting problem, and another scanner will not fix it.
- Where does your evidence live? Count your controls by system of record before you count features on a datasheet.
- Can you see the test? Ask a vendor to show you the query behind one control, not the dashboard tile above it.
- Does it keep the whole period? A tool that shows current state and discards history cannot evidence a 12-month audit window.
- Who owns an exception, and when does it expire? Exceptions with no expiry date pile up until somebody audits the exception list itself.
- What happens when a standard is revised? Ask how the last framework revision reached customers, and how long the update took to arrive.
None of this replaces the governance program the controls sit inside. A platform reports on controls that somebody decided to have, at a frequency somebody decided to set. Buying the tool before making those decisions is how programs end up with dashboards that no one owns and reports that no one reads.
Where Orca Fits in an Automated Compliance Program
Orca is not a GRC platform. It does not hold your policy library, run attestation campaigns, track training completion, or produce the assessor’s opinion. Those jobs belong to the audit-readiness category above.
What Orca supplies is the collection and testing half for technical controls. The agentless-first Orca Cloud Security Platform reads workloads, configurations, identities, and data across AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, Kubernetes, Alibaba Cloud, and Oracle Cloud. It then checks all of it continuously against more than 150 frameworks and CIS benchmarks. Teams can tailor those frameworks, combine rules from several of them, or build one from scratch.
The checks run on a schedule rather than at audit time, so what reaches your compliance platform is a dated record instead of a snapshot. That is the shift cloud security posture management brings to any control living in the cloud. That makes Orca the evidence engine feeding an automated compliance program. Get a demo to see it run against your own estate.
Frequently Asked Questions About Compliance Automation
How long does it take to implement compliance automation?
It depends entirely on where your evidence lives, and the honest answer is a range rather than a number. Cloud accounts connect quickly because the APIs already expose control state. Controls whose evidence sits in HR systems, signed documents, or vendor contracts take much longer, and a few never connect at all. The first framework takes the longest, and each one after it reuses the collectors you already built.
Can compliance automation replace a compliance analyst?
No, though it changes what the role does daily. The analyst stops chasing screenshots and starts working on scope decisions, exception reviews, control design, and the conversations an assessor wants to have. Programs that automate collection and then cut the headcount usually discover the gap during their next scoping exercise.
Does compliance automation work for systems that are not in the cloud?
Yes, wherever an API or an agent can read the state. On-premises servers, network devices, SaaS applications, and identity systems all expose queryable configuration. Location is not the limit. The question is whether a machine can read the fact a control depends on, without a person interpreting it.
How often should automated compliance checks run?
Match the frequency to what the control itself demands, then run more often than that. PCI DSS asks for daily audit log review under Requirement 10.4.1, and a user access review every six months under 7.2.4. Those two controls sit at opposite ends of one program. Running a six-monthly control daily costs almost nothing and turns one annual data point into a trend.
Who should own compliance automation, security or GRC?
GRC should own the control catalog, the scope, and the exception process. Security engineering should own the collectors and the tests, because those break when infrastructure changes. Splitting it the other way is the usual cause of tests that pass while the underlying control has quietly stopped working.
Table of contents
- What Is Compliance Automation?
- How Compliance Automation Works
- Key Benefits of Automated Compliance
- Essential Features of Compliance Automation Platforms
- Compliance Workflow Automation: What You Can Automate
- Top Compliance Automation Tools and Solutions
- Choosing the Right Compliance Automation Solution for Your Organization
- Where Orca Fits in an Automated Compliance Program
- Frequently Asked Questions About Compliance Automation