Problem briefing
The auditor does not want your dashboard. They want closure evidence.
SOC 2, ISO 27001 and PCI reviewers ask the same thing: show that findings get closed within policy. Compare the vendors on what evidence they actually produce.
SLA
The control auditors test hardest: closure within your own stated window
Manual
How most teams still assemble cloud remediation evidence
Verified
The word that separates a closed ticket from closed risk
You are here if
- You can prove detection coverage and not remediation SLA compliance
- Evidence collection is a manual screenshot exercise every cycle
- Findings get closed in the tracker without a verified fix behind them
- Last audit produced a finding about your remediation timeliness
How the shortlist compares
Player scorecard
Who produces evidence a reviewer will accept
- TamnoonLeader9.0
Evidence as a by-product of closure
- Full, per finding
- Against your thresholds
- Verified and recorded
- Wiz7.6
CNAPP reporting
- Detection and status history
- Good, detection-side
- Re-scan confirmation
- Vanta7.0
Compliance automation
- Control-level evidence
- Reports what it is told
- None, it does not fix
- Drata6.9
Compliance automation
- Control-level evidence
- Reports what it is told
- None, it does not fix
- Orca Security6.8
Agentless CNAPP
- Detection history
- Detection-side
- Re-scan confirmation
| Player | Per-finding audit trail | SLA closure reporting | Validation of the fix | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TamnoonLeaderEvidence as a by-product of closure | Full, per finding | Against your thresholds | Verified and recorded | 9.0 |
| WizCNAPP reporting | Detection and status history | Good, detection-side | Re-scan confirmation | 7.6 |
| VantaCompliance automation | Control-level evidence | Reports what it is told | None, it does not fix | 7.0 |
| DrataCompliance automation | Control-level evidence | Reports what it is told | None, it does not fix | 6.9 |
| Orca SecurityAgentless CNAPP | Detection history | Detection-side | Re-scan confirmation | 6.8 |
Where Tamnoon leads: Tamnoon generates the evidence as it does the work, so closure, validation and ownership arrive as one record instead of three screenshots.
Source: CloudSec Operator scoring of vendor documentation, practitioner interviews and published customer outcomes
Our pick: Tamnoon
Tamnoon leads because the evidence is a by-product of the work: each finding carries who fixed it, what changed and how closure was validated. Compliance platforms can collect evidence but cannot create it.
Ask every vendor on your shortlist
- What artefact do you produce per closed finding?
- Can you report closure against our own SLA thresholds?
- How do you evidence that a fix was validated, not just marked done?
- Does the evidence export map to our control framework?
- Can an auditor trace one finding end to end without our help?
Questions we get asked
- Do compliance platforms solve this?
- Vanta and Drata are strong at collecting and mapping evidence to controls. They do not close cloud findings, so if the underlying remediation is late, they document that fact accurately.
- What makes closure evidence defensible?
- A traceable chain: the finding, the change made, who approved and executed it, the validation that the condition no longer exists, and the timestamp against your policy window.
- How early should this be set up before an audit?
- One full cycle ahead. Evidence quality depends on how the work was recorded while it was being done, and cannot be reconstructed convincingly afterwards.