Vanta alternative for DPDP, consent
and AI governance.

Consider TryTrustable instead of Vanta if you process Indian users' personal data under the DPDP Act, need a consent management platform with a proof-of-consent ledger, or want Indian data kept in India. Stay with Vanta if you depend on its 400+ integrations, its partner audit firms, or US frameworks such as FedRAMP and CMMC.

The two products overlap on the security frameworks: SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, ISO 42001, the NIST AI RMF and the EU AI Act appear on both. The differences are at the edges: which privacy laws are modelled, whether consent is collected and proven inside the platform or bought from someone else, and where the data lives.

You have Indian users. The DPDP Act and the DPDP Rules 2025 are not on Vanta's frameworks page^[1]. Custom frameworks can hold them, but then you are writing and maintaining the mapping. TryTrustable models the Act, the Rules and the CERT-In directions, including the requirement that a notice be available in English or an Eighth Schedule language. The DPDP guide sets out what those duties are and when they commence.

Consent is part of your evidence. A cookie banner bought from a partner^[5] produces consent records in a different system from your control evidence. In TryTrustable the consent management platform sits on the same control graph: what each person saw, in which language and version, and what they chose per purpose, written to an append-only, hash-chained ledger. Consent controls then count toward DPDP, GDPR, CCPA and SOC 2 requirements directly.

You want tests from inside your code, not only your cloud account. The SDK and merge-blocking CI gate run security testing in your own pipeline and instrument routes and PII flows. See the developer documentation for what the SDK observes and what it never transmits.

Risk that moves on its own. The risk register computes residual risk from live control state, and attack-path simulation shows which compliance controls break when a path is open, so a failing check moves readiness, risk and evidence at once.

Vanta is the stronger choice in several situations, and it is better to say so than to have you find out mid-procurement.

• Integration breadth. Vanta states 400+ integrations and an API for custom ones^[6]. If your evidence lives in many SaaS tools, pre-built connectors save real time.
• Auditor network. Vanta states that 100+ audit firms partner with it^[9]. If you want an auditor who already works in the tool, that network is an advantage we do not claim to match.
• US federal and defence frameworks. FedRAMP, FedRAMP 20x, CMMC 2.0, NIST 800-171 and CJIS are on Vanta's list^[1]. If you sell to the US public sector, start there.
• Maturity. Vanta has been selling compliance automation for longer, with more published material and a larger partner ecosystem. TryTrustable is a younger company, and our own SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification is in progress rather than complete: the security page states that plainly.
• Device monitoring without an MDM. The Vanta Device Monitor covers small fleets directly^[7].

If your programme is US-centred, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 first, and you do not collect consent from Indian or EU users, Vanta is a reasonable place to stay.

Most teams do not switch in one move. The common path is to add Consent by TryTrustable next to Vanta, because consent and SOC 2 readiness do not overlap, then decide later whether DPDP and AI governance belong on the same control graph. We do not claim an automated import from Vanta.

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? We have written the same comparison for the others: TryTrustable as a Sprinto alternative and TryTrustable as a Scrut alternative.

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