Secureframe alternative for DPDP
and proof of consent.

Consider TryTrustable instead of Secureframe if you process Indian users' personal data under the DPDP Act, need consent collected and proven on your own sites with a hash-chained ledger, or want Indian data kept in India. Stay with Secureframe for US public-sector frameworks, its questionnaire automation and its in-house compliance experts.

Both cover SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, ISO 42001, the NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act. The differences are DPDP, consent collection, what the AI features are for, and hosting regions.

You have Indian users. DPDP is not in Secureframe's framework list^[2]; its blog suggests mapping it to other frameworks^[3]. TryTrustable models the Act, the DPDP Rules 2025 and the CERT-In directions directly. The DPDP guide explains what they require.

Consent that runs on your site. TryTrustable's consent management platform resolves the applicable regime per visitor, blocks trackers until the visitor agrees and writes each choice, with notice version and language, to an append-only, hash-chained ledger.

AI you build. AI governance registers your models, prompts and MCP servers and runs judge-scored evaluations, so ISO 42001 and EU AI Act evidence describes the system you ship.

Data in India. Indian customer data is resident in India, stated on the security page. Secureframe lists US East and London^[7].

Secureframe is the better fit in several respects.

• US public sector. FedRAMP, GovRAMP, CMMC, CJIS and TX-RAMP are on its list^[1][2], with a dedicated Defense plan for CMMC^[9].
• Questionnaire automation. Secureframe Trust answers security questionnaires with AI and states 90%+ accuracy^[10].
• Integrations. 300+ integrations per its integrations page^[5].
• Expert support. Secureframe states it has in-house compliance experts and former auditors^[8]. We do not offer an equivalent.
• Maturity. TryTrustable is younger, and our own SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification is in progress.

If your customers are US federal agencies or defence contractors, start with Secureframe.

The low-risk route is to keep Secureframe for the programme and add Consent by TryTrustable for consent collection and proof. We do not claim an automated import from Secureframe.

What carries over is the work rather than the files. The controls you operate today (access reviews, encryption, logging, vendor reviews, incident response) are the same controls in any tool. In TryTrustable each one is mapped once onto a shared control library, and cross-framework mapping carries its result to every regime that asks for it, with partial coverage recorded as partial. Your policies are documents you already own, and your past audit reports remain your records.

What does not carry over is history. Evidence in TryTrustable is timestamped when it is collected, from the day an integration connects, and every framework starts empty: a requirement with no control behind it scores as not modelled, never as met. Keep what you exported from the old tool as a record of the earlier period rather than expecting it to be re-dated. Integrations take read-only scopes, so connecting them changes nothing in your environment.

For the detail behind the TryTrustable column: the full list of regimes we cover, Consent by TryTrustable, the standalone consent management platform, our DPDP Act and Rules 2025 guide and AI governance for ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act.

Comparing more than one tool? The same sourced comparison exists for Vanta, Sprinto, Scrut and Drata. If consent is the gap rather than the programme, see consent management for the DPDP Act.

This page compares software, and is not legal advice about what any regulation requires of you.