Archer and LogicGate Risk Cloud turn up on the same shortlist mostly because of search demand, not because the two vendors chase the same buyer: people researching LogicGate type “LogicGate vs Archer” far more often than the reverse, and Archer has never framed itself against LogicGate in its own marketing. Underneath that lopsided demand sit two opposite theories of what a GRC platform should be. Archer is the enterprise GRC incumbent many of the world’s biggest banks already run for risk and compliance, with internal audit riding in as one of eight modules on a data model the rest of the organization usually built first. LogicGate is a no-code challenger built the other way around: buy the applications a function needs, including three for audit, and configure a methodology on them, paying for the administrators who build it while everyone who completes a task works free. Both companies claim a Leader placement in the same October 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders, and neither treats internal audit as a business with its own published price.
This comparison covers what each vendor’s own documentation says about ownership and viability, audit workflow depth, SOX and controls, the AI features each shipped between 2024 and 2026 and their data-handling claims, the pricing evidence standing in for a published price on Archer’s side, and the scorecard and fit-by-situation ratings from the site’s independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software, using the method in how we review audit software. The full Archer review and LogicGate Risk Cloud review cover each product in depth on its own.
Verdict. Neither product wins outright on audit capability alone, and the honest comparison is narrower than either vendor’s Magic Quadrant badge suggests. Archer is the stronger choice once a bank, insurer or other large regulated enterprise is already consolidating risk, compliance and audit onto one shared data model; LogicGate is the stronger choice for a mid-size or large function that wants to configure its own methodology across several GRC programs and would rather pay for administrators than for every tester.
Choose Archer if. Your organization is a large or global function inside a bank, insurer or other regulated enterprise that already runs, or plans to run, Archer for enterprise risk and compliance, and the deepest bank customer base here matters more than a published price or a finished AI story.
Choose LogicGate if. You want audit, enterprise risk, third-party risk and compliance configured on one no-code platform with a capable administrator, would rather pay only for the people who build the platform than for every auditor, or want the more specific published statement of which AI models touch your data and how long they keep it.
Evidence. Research-based: vendor documentation and release notes, public procurement records, third-party pricing data, verified user reviews on Gartner Peer Insights and G2, and analyst coverage. We have not used either product hands-on for this comparison.
Price evidence. Archer publishes no price list; its AWS Marketplace listing shows an evident $9,999,999.00 placeholder, and Vendr’s buyer data has no median at all, only a $100,000 threshold that triggers its legal review. Vendr’s data for LogicGate, checked 26 September 2026, puts its median contract at $53,784 a year, range $12,294 to $136,130.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- Archer and LogicGate in one table
- Where they are different
- Head to head: the scorecard
- Fit by situation, side by side
- Total cost of ownership over five years
- Migration between them
- Our recommendation
- Questions about Archer and LogicGate
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
Archer and LogicGate in one table
Put side by side, the two products agree on almost nothing structural. The table draws on each vendor’s own documentation, the site’s Archer review and LogicGate review, and the public pricing record.
| Attribute | Archer (Audit Management) | LogicGate Risk Cloud |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Cinven, a private-equity firm, since 10 July 2023; before that, Clearlake Capital and Symphony Technology Group (2021), and STG’s 2020 purchase of RSA Security from Dell | Private, venture and private-equity backed; PSG led a $113 million Series C in 2021; Diego Panama becomes chief executive in July 2026 |
| Founded | 2000; headquarters Overland Park, Kansas | 2015 to 2016, by three co-founders (sources disagree on the exact year); headquarters Chicago |
| Category | Enterprise GRC suite; audit is one of eight modules | No-code GRC platform; audit is three of more than 30 applications |
| Deployment | On-premises or SaaS; classic Archer and the newer Archer Evolv coexist on the same data | Cloud (SaaS) only |
| Audit module(s) | Audit Management: Audit Planning and Quality, Audit Engagements and Workpapers, Issues Management | Internal Audit Management, Controls Compliance and SOX Compliance, each a separately licensed application |
| Pricing model | Not stated by the vendor; an AWS listing implies a negotiated, solution-plus-user-count structure | Applications plus Power Users, the administrators who build and configure them; Standard and External users cost nothing |
| Price evidence | None public beyond a $100,000 Vendr legal-review threshold; the AWS listing shows an evident $9,999,999.00 placeholder | Vendr median $53,784 a year, range $12,294 to $136,130 (checked 26 September 2026) |
| Gartner Peer Insights, Audit Management Solutions | 4.3 (36 reviews) | 4.1 (55 reviews) |
| G2 | 3.6 (20 reviews) | 4.6 (191 reviews) |
| Analyst placements claimed | Leader, Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders (October 2025); Leader, Verdantix Green Quadrant: GRC Software 2025 | Leader, the identical Gartner Magic Quadrant (October 2025); Leader, Forrester Wave for GRC Platforms (Q2 2026) and Third-Party Risk Management Platforms (Q1 2026); 28 consecutive quarters as a G2 Leader |
| FedRAMP / GovRAMP | None found despite a dedicated Public Sector module; real GSA, NASA SEWP V and ITES-SW2 contract vehicles through Carahsoft | None listed; hosting in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Australia |
Three rows repay a second look. Ownership runs to opposite poles: Archer has changed hands three times since 2020 under a private-equity owner, while LogicGate has never been sold and is only now living through its first founder-to-operator transition. Pricing transparency runs the other way — the steadier owner publishes a real pricing model and real buyer data, while the vendor that changed hands three times publishes nothing. And the G2 and Gartner Peer Insights rows are not measuring the same thing: LogicGate’s G2 score draws mostly on risk and compliance customers, not the 55 reviewers who rated it for audit specifically.
Where they are different
Everything below comes from each vendor’s own documentation, public procurement and pricing data, and verified user reviews, not from using either product hands-on. Seven factors do most of the work when a shortlist actually comes down to these two.
Ownership and vendor stability
Archer’s ownership has moved three times in about as many years. Symphony Technology Group bought RSA Security, Archer’s then parent, from Dell in 2020; STG and Clearlake Capital spun Archer out as an independent company in 2021, a period in which Archer says its SaaS annual recurring revenue roughly doubled; Cinven agreed to buy Archer from Clearlake and STG on 13 April 2023 and closed the deal on 10 July 2023. Chief executive Bill Diaz has stayed in place throughout all three.
LogicGate has not been acquired and has made no acquisitions of its own that we could find. PSG led a $113 million Series C on 28 July 2021, with Greenspring Associates, taking total funding to $156 million. The leadership did change in 2026: on 30 April the company announced that Diego Panama, who joined in May 2025 as President and Chief Operating Officer, would become chief executive in July 2026, with co-founder Matt Kunkel moving to Executive Chairman and co-founder Jon Siegler becoming Chief Product and Technology Officer. That is a founder-to-operator transition, not an acquisition, but it is the first sign that LogicGate’s own ownership clock may be starting.
Audit workflow depth and the shared data model
Archer’s Audit Entity and Audit Plan apps scope and risk-assess the universe against the same enterprise risk and control data the rest of the organization keeps current, and the Audit Engagement app is cross-linked to that library so an engagement can pull the risks and controls it is testing rather than re-entering them. Workpapers are not a separate product; they are unified inside the Audit Engagement app, described only as “unified workpaper management” with “built-in workflows,” and the Issues Management help page did not render for us, limiting what we could verify beyond a dedicated app that consolidates findings from audit, risk and compliance into one register.
LogicGate’s Internal Audit Management application gives a function planning forms, shared repositories of audits, risks and controls with built-in changelogs, and configurable workflows from planning to remediation, but none of it is audit-native: no rolling multi-year plan, resourcing calendar, workpaper editor or review-note hierarchy appears in the documentation, and a function builds its universe as a record set and its plan as a report. Its own Issues Management application and free Standard users as action owners cover follow-up well, and remediation records are created automatically when an evidence test fails, an automation Archer does not describe. Archer markets Evolv as adding modules with “no replatforming” and “no data lift.”
The trade runs through this whole comparison: Archer starts from data other people already built, an advantage where risk and compliance run Archer and a dependency where they do not; LogicGate starts from a blank workflow, a real cost in year one and an advantage once the methodology is exactly what the function wants. The site’s risk and control matrix template and annual risk assessment playbook are useful checklists for either platform’s planning stage.
SOX and controls
Neither vendor bundles SOX inside its audit module. Archer’s financial-controls work sits in Regulatory and Corporate Compliance Management, a second module a SOX buyer must also license, under a use case Archer calls Financial Controls Monitoring that explicitly names “SOX narratives, 302 certifications, and PBC lists”: controls are authored once against every framework they satisfy, tie to general-ledger accounts and risks, and sit in a versioned repository external-auditor roles can see without full access. LogicGate sells its own second application, SOX Compliance, alongside Controls Compliance, automating evidence collection from HR and IT systems and crosswalking more than 30 frameworks; the Summer 2026 release added a Provision 29 workflow co-developed with PwC for UK-listed companies, which the site’s UK SOX and Provision 29 guide covers.
Neither vendor describes the part of SOX that keeps controllers awake at quarter end: deficiency evaluation and aggregation, a certification cascade, or reporting in the external auditor’s own format. On LogicGate that gap is configuration; on Archer it is simply undescribed. Either way, get the scope and price of that second module in writing before assuming it is included; the site’s SOX 404 guide and control deficiency evaluation method set out what the program needs, whichever system runs it.
Analytics, integrations and automation
Archer’s integration story is a direct data connection: Audit Management “pulls pre-existing risk and control data” rather than duplicating entry, Audit Planning and Quality ships seven automated data feeds including auto-scoping by risk, and a documented web-services API exists with authentication and rate-limit detail unconfirmed. LogicGate automates workflow rather than data: Jobs that run on triggers, evidence collection from connected systems, and smart automations such as dynamic due-date alerts; its integration list grew through 2026, adding Smartsheet, Ironclad, Box and Microsoft Planner on top of Jira, Workday and AWS Security Hub.
Neither is a scripting or full-population analytics layer of the kind a dedicated audit-analytics tool provides, so a team choosing either for the shared-data advantage should still budget a second tool; the site’s audit analytics software comparison covers the dedicated options. That gap alone splits the fit table below for analytics-heavy teams.
AI features and data handling
Archer’s AI lineup is the denser of the two: Assurance AI and AI Governance (18 September 2024), Evolv for Compliance (4 February 2025), and Evolv Foundation and Evolv Workplace, a marketplace of scoped AI “Operators” (14 September 2026), whose own two model-count claims do not reconcile. LogicGate is the more specific vendor on disclosure: its help center names the models behind every AI feature and states plainly what they do with customer data. Neither has shipped an agent that plans an audit engagement or drafts a program.
| AI attribute | Archer | LogicGate |
|---|---|---|
| Named models | Not named; positioning pages cite proprietary model counts that conflict with each other (492 versus 526) | Named: OpenAI’s gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-5-mini, whisper-1 and text-embedding-3-small; bring-your-own-key option |
| Data-use statement | Concrete for one feature only: Evolv AI Compliance (15 Sep 2026) isolates prompts and model weights inside the customer’s own AWS account and IAM role | Not used to train models; 30-day retention under LogicGate’s own key; opt-in through an AI Control Center |
| Audit-specific agent | None documented; Operators exist for Audit as a marketplace category but no engagement-planning or drafting agent is named | None; Automated Evidence Testing grades attachments generically inside two applications, not an audit agent |
| 2026 agent layer | Evolv Workplace Operators, live in Foundation, Audit, Third-Party Risk, IT Risk and Operational Risk | GRC Agents for third-party, enterprise, AI governance and business continuity risk; none for audit |
| Natural-language data access | “Identity-bound operators with native IAM and SSO integration,” per Archer’s own positioning material | MCP server, September 2026 |
| Vendor claim to test yourself | “95% Verified Accuracy, 80x Faster, 92% Lower Cost” versus general-purpose language models (30 Jun 2026; no methodology found) | Config Newton deploys applications 50 to 75 percent faster (30 Jun 2026; unverified) |
Read the table for what it actually settles. On disclosure, LogicGate is the more concrete vendor for every feature it names; on architecture, Archer’s Evolv AI Compliance, with prompts and model weights isolated inside the customer’s own AWS account, is the single most concrete AI data-handling statement either company has published. Both shipped a Model Context Protocol server in 2026, and either deserves a security review before anyone turns it on. Gartner’s April 2026 caution to be wary of agent-washing applies equally to both; the site’s guide to evaluating AI in audit software has the test protocol.
Administration, security and public-sector reach
Archer’s SaaS Security and Trust page names SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27701, AES-256 and TLS 1.3 encryption with optional bring-your-own-key, AWS hosting across seven regions, and a 99.5 percent composite service-level agreement. LogicGate’s trust center names SOC 2 Type II (2026 report), ISO 27001 (2025 certificate), CSA STAR, the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, 21 CFR Part 11 and a VPAT, with AWS hosting in the United States, United Kingdom, European Union and Australia and an annual third-party penetration test. Neither publishes a FedRAMP or StateRAMP authorization, but the gap matters more for Archer, which has a dedicated Public Sector module (POA&M, Assessment and Authorization, Continuous Monitoring) and real procurement paths through reseller Carahsoft — GSA MAS, NASA SEWP V and ITES-SW2 — while LogicGate has no public-sector product or contract vehicle of its own.
That asymmetry still lands both products at Workable for public sector on the fit table below: Archer’s module offsets its missing authorization, and LogicGate’s free External and Standard users, a natural fit for a campus or agency with many non-builder participants, offset having no public-sector product of its own. The site’s audit software due diligence guide has the fuller checklist for data residency and AI data use before signing.
Pricing transparency, admin burden and reputation
Archer publishes nothing: its AWS Marketplace listing shows a 12-month contract priced at an evident $9,999,999.00 placeholder and states outright that pricing is not published on the Marketplace, and Vendr’s buyer data shows no median, only a $100,000 threshold that triggers its own legal review. LogicGate publishes its model without its prices: applications plus Power Users, the administrators who build and maintain them; Standard and External users, every action owner and questionnaire respondent, cost nothing. That structure prices administrative burden directly rather than hiding it: an audit function typically needs two or three Power User seats, because the person who configured the application eventually leaves, while Archer’s documentation says nothing about headcount at all.
| Metric | Archer | LogicGate |
|---|---|---|
| Gartner Peer Insights, Audit Management Solutions | 4.3 from 36 reviews | 4.1 from 55 reviews |
| G2, whole-product rating | 3.6 from 20 reviews | 4.6 from 191 reviews |
| Most-cited praise | A single data model across audit, risk and compliance; deep customization | No-code flexibility; one platform for the whole GRC program |
| Most-cited complaint | A dated interface; on TrustRadius, an approve-or-reject-only workflow that forces resubmissions | Difficulty building table reports for metrics; effort to change configured applications |
The two Gartner Peer Insights ratings run one way and the two G2 ratings run the other, and the gap is a sample-size story more than a quality one: G2 draws LogicGate’s much larger risk-and-compliance user base rather than the thin audit-specific slice Gartner segments out, which is also why LogicGate’s own most recent critical Gartner Peer Insights review, from 27 April 2026, describes Spark AI as “in its infancy” for an IT controls audit — a small sample where one sharp complaint moves the average.
Head to head: the scorecard
The scorecard uses the same 12 areas as every review in this guide, so the levels below can be read straight off each product’s own review; nothing here has been changed to make the comparison tidier.
| Area | Archer | LogicGate | What decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Strong | Adequate | Archer scopes against enterprise data already built; LogicGate gives a function a record set and lets it build the plan as a report |
| Engagement workflow | Strong | Adequate | Archer’s engagement app is cross-linked to the shared risk and control library; LogicGate’s is a configurable generic workflow |
| Workpapers and evidence | Adequate | Adequate | Neither ships a dedicated workpaper editor with tickmarks and review notes; both approximate one with documents, fields and history logs |
| Issues and follow-up | Strong | Strong | Archer through one register spanning audit, risk and compliance; LogicGate through free Standard users as action owners and auto-created remediation records |
| Reporting | Adequate | Limited | Archer’s platform-wide dashboards are a general-purpose layer; LogicGate’s most-cited complaint is difficulty building table reports |
| SOX and controls testing | Adequate | Adequate | Both name real SOX capability in a second module or application; neither describes deficiency evaluation or a certification cascade |
| Analytics and automation | Adequate | Limited | Archer’s seven data feeds and REST API against LogicGate’s workflow automation with no analytics engine at all |
| AI features | Adequate | Adequate | Archer ships more AI, with conflicting model-count claims; LogicGate discloses less scope but names its models and data terms precisely |
| Quality program support | Limited | Limited | Neither describes QAIP-specific metrics; workflow design can enforce steps on either platform, which is as far as it goes |
| Auditee experience | Limited | Strong | No auditee-facing portal found for Archer; LogicGate’s free Standard and External users, reached by one-time passcode, are built for this |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong | Strong | Archer holds SOC 2 Type 2 and the ISO 27001 family across seven AWS regions; LogicGate holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 across four regions |
| Cost and contract | Limited | Adequate | Archer publishes no price list of any kind; LogicGate publishes its pricing model, even without its prices |
| Vendor viability | Adequate | Adequate | Archer under a steady release cadence but three ownership changes since 2020; LogicGate stable in ownership but starting its first leadership transition |
Six of the 13 rows differ, in a pattern rather than at random. Archer leads on planning, engagement workflow, reporting and analytics, everywhere the shared enterprise data model does real work; LogicGate leads on cost transparency and auditee experience, everywhere its pricing model and free non-builder users do the work instead. The two tie on issues and follow-up, SOX, AI, administration and security, quality program support, and vendor viability — not because the products are equivalent, but because each clears the same bar differently.
Fit by situation, side by side
The eight situations are the site’s standard decision device, applied the same way on every review and comparison in this guide; the ratings below are the ones each product’s own review already carries.
| Situation | Archer | LogicGate | Why the difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Poor fit | Workable | Archer has no self-service entry price at all; LogicGate’s free Standard users help, but someone still has to build the audit application from a blank workflow |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Poor fit | Strong fit | LogicGate is built for exactly this scale; Archer’s value still depends on risk or compliance already running the platform, which most functions this size have not built |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both hold up: Archer on shared enterprise data and administrative capacity, LogicGate on its hosting footprint and Power User pricing that does not scale with headcount |
| SOX-heavy public company | Workable | Workable | Neither bundles SOX for free or documents deficiency evaluation; LogicGate at least ships a dedicated SOX application with a 2026 Provision 29 workflow |
| Bank or credit union | Strong fit | Workable | Archer’s claimed 37 of the top 50 global banks and directly held certifications against LogicGate’s sound security posture but no regulated-industry audit content found |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Workable | Workable | Archer’s Public Sector module and Carahsoft vehicles against LogicGate’s free External and Standard users; neither holds a FedRAMP or StateRAMP authorization |
| Analytics-heavy team | Workable | Poor fit | Archer’s seven data feeds and REST API against LogicGate’s total absence of an analytics engine, scripted tests or transaction monitoring |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | Strong fit | The buyer both platforms are built for, in different flavors: Archer bank-and-enterprise-led, LogicGate configure-everything |
Four of the eight rows split outright, and they tell a consistent story. LogicGate wins decisively at the smaller and mid-size end of the market and on analytics; Archer wins decisively at the bank-and-regulated end. The two agree only on the extremes: a large or global function and a three-lines GRC consolidation rate Strong fit on both sides, so a buyer that size should decide on the factors in the previous section, not this table. The site’s audit software for banks and credit unions guide has the regulatory detail behind that row.
Total cost of ownership over five years
Archer publishes no price at all, so a true five-year total cannot be built for it the way it can for a product with real buyer data. What follows uses only the public figures that exist, with every assumption labeled, for a hypothetical: Lakeshore Bancorp, the fictional $9 billion regional bank used across this site for worked examples, with 60 branches and 212 key controls, evaluating either platform for an eight-person audit function that also needs a second module or application licensed for SOX. Treat every figure below as illustrative, not a quote.
| Cost driver | Archer (illustrative) | LogicGate (illustrative) |
|---|---|---|
| Smallest verified deal, held flat for five years | Cannot be modeled — only an evident $9,999,999.00 AWS placeholder and a $100,000 Vendr legal-review threshold exist | Vendr’s published floor, $12,294 a year, times five years equals $61,470 (application and Power User count not stated) |
| Typical verified deal (median), held flat for five years | Cannot be modeled | Vendr’s median, $53,784 a year, times five years equals $268,920 |
| Largest verified deal, held flat for five years | Cannot be modeled | Vendr’s published ceiling, $136,130 a year, times five years equals $680,650 |
| Still to price via RFP | Regulatory and Corporate Compliance Management if SOX is in scope; Evolv’s AI features (Foundation, Workplace, AI Compliance); implementation through the Deloitte or KPMG alliances | SOX Compliance and Controls Compliance applications; Risk Cloud Quantify; implementation, professional and integration services |
The gap in this table is itself the finding. LogicGate’s row can be built, even as a rough range, because Vendr has real buyer data at three points; Archer’s cannot be built at all without a quote in hand, which says something about how the two vendors treat pricing transparency. A buyer serious about Archer should ask for a written, itemized quote early, since nothing in the public record gives even a rough floor to negotiate against. The internal audit software pricing guide runs the same exercise against every other vendor in this program.
Migration between them
No public case study describes a customer moving directly between Archer and LogicGate in either direction, so treat what follows as general guidance, not a documented path. What normally survives a move to a new system is structural: the audit universe, the current-year plan, the risk and control matrix and open issues, all of which export as records or spreadsheets from either platform. What does not survive automatically is the workpaper archive itself, because each vendor’s evidence format, history log and audit trail are built for its own product; records configured inside LogicGate’s Internal Audit Management application have no direct equivalent inside Archer’s Audit Engagement app, and the reverse is just as awkward.
Get export terms in writing before signing with either vendor. LogicGate’s Master Services Agreement grants 30 days to retrieve data after termination, after which it may be deleted, and sets no cap on renewal pricing. We found no published export or data-retrieval terms for Archer, a real due-diligence gap given how little else it publishes about contract end; ask the question directly and get the answer added to the contract. The site’s guide to implementing audit management software covers the first 120 days either migration requires, and the vendor-neutral RFP method has the clause language to put in front of either vendor.
Our recommendation
Start with what your function actually is, not which vendor’s Magic Quadrant badge came up first in search. A function of one to 25 auditors that is not already inside a bank or a broader Archer deployment should treat this pairing as lopsided: LogicGate rates Workable or Strong fit at that scale with a real Vendr floor to negotiate against, while Archer rates Poor fit outright with no entry price of any kind. That same function should also weigh Optro (formerly AuditBoard), the audit-native alternative both reviews in this guide point toward, before assuming a GRC platform is the right category at all; the site’s GRC suite versus standalone audit management software comparison sets out that prior decision.
For the large or global function where both products genuinely compete, the decision usually resolves before the RFP does. If risk, compliance or IT security already runs Archer, or the organization is a bank or credit union with real exam scrutiny to satisfy, lean Archer: the deeper claimed bank base, the directly held security certifications, and an audit-specific Gartner rating a narrow but real margin ahead. If the organization wants one configurable platform spanning several GRC programs, has an administrator to spare, and values a written answer about what its AI does with your data, lean LogicGate. An analytics-heavy team can treat this pairing as largely settled: Archer’s data feeds and API clear the Workable bar where LogicGate’s total absence of an analytics layer does not, though neither replaces a dedicated tool. Run both through the site’s vendor-neutral RFP method and demo script before deciding on price or a badge, and see the site’s 15 buying mistakes guide for the errors that show up most often once a contract is signed.
Questions about Archer and LogicGate
Why does search demand pair LogicGate with Archer more than Archer with LogicGate?
Autocomplete data shows “LogicGate vs Archer” as a real search pattern, alongside LogicGate vs AuditBoard and LogicGate vs Vanta, while Archer’s own search pairing runs almost entirely toward ServiceNow instead. The likely explanation is who is searching: a LogicGate prospect evaluating a no-code platform is naturally curious about the enterprise incumbent, while an Archer prospect, usually already choosing among enterprise GRC suites for a bank or large regulated business, has little reason to consider a mid-market challenger. Both companies do claim the same Leader placement in the October 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders, which likely explains why the two names appear near each other at all.
Which is cheaper, Archer or LogicGate?
There is no honest answer for Archer: no public figure exists beyond a $100,000 Vendr legal-review threshold and an evident placeholder price on an AWS listing. LogicGate has real data: a Vendr median of $53,784 a year, range $12,294 to $136,130. Treat that range as a starting point, not a budget, and get a written, itemized quote from Archer early, since nothing in the public record gives you a floor to push against.
Is Archer or LogicGate the better fit for a bank?
Archer, on the evidence in this guide. It rates Strong fit for a bank or credit union against LogicGate’s Workable, on the strength of a deeper claimed bank customer base, security certifications held directly rather than assembled from platform-level claims, and named bank customers across the sources reviewed. LogicGate has a sound general security posture but no regulated-industry audit content or bank references found, so a bank with no existing platform relationship has more reason to start with Archer, and to budget for the pricing opacity that comes with it.
Can a small audit team use either product?
Not comfortably on Archer, which rates a Poor fit for a team of one to five auditors and has no self-service price to even start a conversation. LogicGate rates Workable at that size: only Power Users pay, so cost can stay low, but someone still has to build the Internal Audit Management application largely from scratch, and a team this size rarely has a spare administrator for the job. The site’s audit software for small teams guide has lower-cost options for a function that size.
Does either vendor train its AI on our data?
Both say no, but only one says much else. LogicGate’s help center names the OpenAI models behind every AI feature and states that inputs and outputs are not used to train models, with a 30-day retention period under its own key. Archer’s answer is concrete for exactly one feature: Evolv AI Compliance runs guardrails inside the customer’s own AWS account, keeping prompts and model weights isolated from Archer; every other Archer AI feature, including the denser Evolv Foundation and Workplace layer, has no published data-use statement. Get whichever answer applies into the contract before enabling any AI feature on real audit content.
Is there a Gartner Magic Quadrant that ranks Archer against LogicGate for audit management?
No. Gartner has no Magic Quadrant for audit management specifically; the Market Guide for Audit Management Software, published 13 April 2026, does not rank vendors at all. The Magic Quadrant both companies cite, for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders, published 27 October 2025, named both Archer and LogicGate as Leaders among 16 vendors, alongside Optro (formerly AuditBoard) and IBM, but that report evaluates the broader GRC category, not audit management on its own, so a shared badge tells you less about either product’s audit depth than it appears to.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Archer, LogicGate or any other vendor named on this page. We take no vendor money, run no affiliate links and accept no sponsored placements, and no vendor saw this page before publication. Product and company names are the trademarks of their owners. Corrections: desk@internalauditguide.com.
Sources and verification
- PR Newswire: Cinven to acquire Archer — the 13 April 2023 deal, founding, headquarters and ownership history (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Clearlake: sale of Archer to Cinven completes — the 10 July 2023 close and the RSA, STG and Clearlake ownership chain (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Archer: Audit Management product page — modules, workflow claims, customer counts and analyst claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Archer: Regulatory and Corporate Compliance Management product page — the Financial Controls Monitoring and SOX detail (accessed 26 September 2026).
- BusinessWire: Archer introduces Archer Evolv — the 4 February 2025 launch (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Archer: Evolv AI Compliance press release — the 15 September 2026 Bedrock Guardrails architecture (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Archer: Explore Archer — the two unreconciled AI model-count claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Archer: SaaS Security and Trust — certifications, encryption, hosting and SLA detail (accessed 26 September 2026).
- AWS Marketplace: Archer SaaS listing — the placeholder contract price (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: Archer marketplace page — the $100,000 legal-review threshold and the absence of a median (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Carahsoft: Archer contract vehicles — the GSA, NASA SEWP V and ITES-SW2 vehicles (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Archer Audit Management — the 4.3-from-36 rating and its themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Archer reviews — the 3.6-from-20 rating, reviewer segments and themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- TrustRadius: Archer Integrated Risk Management Platform reviews — the 8.4-from-49 rating and themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate: pricing page — the applications and Power User model, free users, add-ons (accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate: $113 million Series C, 28 July 2021 — investors, total funding and named customers (accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate: About Us — the 2015 founding date and the three co-founders, Matt Kunkel, Jon Siegler and Dan Campbell (accessed 27 September 2026).
- LogicGate: Diego Panama appointed CEO, 30 April 2026 — the leadership transition (accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate: Master Services Agreement — auto-renewal, the 30-day data retrieval period, no renewal price cap (updated May 2026; accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate help center: LogicGate AI — named OpenAI models, opt-in enablement, retention and no-training statements (updated 8 September 2026).
- PR Newswire: LogicGate Spring 2026 release, 30 June 2026 — Config Newton and the Forrester Wave Leader claim (accessed 26 September 2026).
- PR Newswire: LogicGate Summer 2026 release, 1 September 2026 — GRC Agents, the MCP server and the Provision 29 workflow (accessed 26 September 2026).
- LogicGate Trust Center — certifications, AWS regions and security practices (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: LogicGate Risk Cloud — the 4.1-from-55 rating and its themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: LogicGate marketplace page — median contract value and range (accessed 26 September 2026).
Related guides
- Internal audit software: the independent buyer’s guide — every review, comparison and buying guide in one place.
- How we review audit software — the evidence levels, the scorecard and the fit-by-situation method.
- The audit software shortlist finder — eight questions, a shortlist with the reasons from each review.
- The requirements matrix — 156 weighted requirements and vendor scoring in a free Excel workbook.
- Archer review — audit management on the enterprise GRC platform banks run.
- LogicGate Risk Cloud review — the audit app, pricing and the trade-offs.
- LogicGate vs Optro — no-code flexibility against an audit-native suite.
- IBM OpenPages vs Archer — which regulated-industry GRC platform for audit.
- MetricStream vs Archer — two enterprise GRC suites for audit, risk and compliance.
- Archer vs ServiceNow IRM — the GRC decision most large enterprises face.
- Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver — the mid-market GRC shortlist for audit teams.
- Archer alternatives — enterprise GRC platforms and lighter options for audit teams.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit management software — how to make the call in 2026.
- Best internal audit software — 25 platforms and tools compared by use case.
- Types of internal audit software — audit management, GRC, SOX, compliance and analytics.
- Internal audit software pricing — real numbers, pricing models and how to negotiate.
- Selecting an audit management system — a vendor-neutral RFP method.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios that make vendors show, not tell.
Leave a Reply