Does Ayven replace Vanta or Drata for SOC 2?

No. A compliance platform like Vanta or Drata should own the automated evidence — system integrations, continuous monitoring, and control mapping — and Ayven does not try to be that. Ayven works the seam those tools leave open: the human evidence a person has to produce, such as signed access reviews, acknowledged policies, and engineer screenshots, and the chasing it takes to get each one filed.

How do you get engineers to complete SOC 2 audit tasks?

Ask each owner individually with the specific evidence item and the auditor's deadline, follow up one at a time rather than broadcasting a reminder, and route around whoever is heads-down or out. Ayven does this in Slack or Teams and tracks each item to filed against its evidence ticket in Jira, YouTrack, or Asana — so an item closes when the evidence is attached, not when someone says they will get to it.

For whoever owns audit prep

Audit season: the evidence has been 'coming' since Tuesday.

Your compliance platform pulled everything it could from the systems. What's left is the human evidence — the access review someone has to actually sign, the screenshot only the engineer can take, the policy nobody's clicked "acknowledge" on. The auditor's list has eleven of those open, and each one is a person you're chasing by hand. Where the line falls between the platform and the chase is below.

Start free See the chase run ↓

Sarah · Tuesday 10:20am Audit fieldwork starts Monday — I still need the Q3 access review signed and the prod-access screenshot. Can you get these to me today? 🙏
○ 3 of 11 evidence items filed

Mike · Thursday yep will do 👍

· "will do" is not evidence · the auditor can't file a thumbs-up · Friday 5pm — eight still open, and you're the one they'll ask about them

thread staged with our recurring cast

01 · What Ayven does with the open list

She chases each item to filed, not to "will do."

Ayven takes the list of outstanding human-evidence items and asks each owner in Slack or Teams — one at a time, with the specific request and the deadline. When someone goes quiet she changes approach instead of repeating the ask, routes around whoever's out, and tracks each item to filed against the evidence ticket, so "will do" is not what closes it.

Tue—asked all 8 owners individually — the exact item, the auditor's deadline

Wed—5 filed · followed up with 3, one at a time, not a broadcast reminder

Thu—Mike is heads-down on an incident — rerouted the prod-access screenshot to Lin

Fri○1 still open — escalated to Sarah with what's been tried and what's blocking

02 · The register

Filed means the evidence is attached, not promised.

Ayven APP · Friday 3:48pm Lin attached the prod-access screenshot and marked the Q3 access review signed. I checked the evidence ticket rather than taking the "done" in chat — both show attached. That closes the item on the auditor's list.

Access review — signed & filedView

evidence attached on the ticket, not a message that says it will be — 10 of 11 now filed

Filed — Jira · 15:48

done for an evidence item means the file is on the ticket

03 · It's real

The product, not a promise.

Ayven tracking each open evidence item with its pending follow-up — every open evidence item, with its owner and pending follow-up — visible, not in your head

Ayven audit trail of what was asked, of whom, and when it filed — the trail: what was asked, of whom, when it filed — a record of the chase itself

threads shown are staged with our recurring cast · screenshots are the live product

04 · The honest answer

Vanta and Drata collect. Ayven chases.

Honest answer first: if you run SOC 2, a compliance platform like Vanta or Drata should own the automated evidence — the system integrations, the continuous monitoring, the control mapping. Ayven is not that, and doesn't try to be. It works the seam those tools leave open: the evidence a human has to produce, and the chasing that takes.

The platform pulls what a system can

Access logs, config states, MDM posture — Vanta and Drata read those straight from the source, continuously, and you should let them. That evidence isn't a chase; it's a connection. Nothing here replaces it.

automated collection — that's the platform's job

Humans still owe the rest

A signed access review, an acknowledged policy, a screenshot only the engineer can take, a manager's attestation — no integration produces those. They come from a person, on a deadline, and someone has to ask until they arrive.

the human evidence — where the week goes

"Will do" doesn't close an item

The auditor can't file a thumbs-up. Ayven tracks each item to filed against its evidence ticket in Jira, YouTrack, or Asana — attached, not promised — and where the item is a person going quiet, it changes approach and reroutes rather than sending the same reminder louder.

filed on the ticket · ticket-scoped done

The chase leaves a trail

Who was asked, for what, and when it landed — the record builds itself as the chase runs. That trail is useful the same way the evidence is: it shows the collection actually happened, without you reconstructing it from a dozen DMs.

a record of the chase, not a rebuild

Let the platform collect. Let Ayven do the chasing.

Start free

hand her the open evidence list · she asks each owner, chases the stragglers, and tracks every item to filed