LogicGate Risk Cloud and Optro (formerly AuditBoard) turn up on the same shortlist for an odd reason: both companies claim a Leader placement in the same two 2026 analyst reports, the Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders and the Forrester Wave for GRC Platforms, and search demand pairs LogicGate with AuditBoard the way it pairs Optro with Workiva. Underneath the shared badges, the two products are built on opposite bets about what an audit function should buy. LogicGate is a no-code GRC platform priced by application and by the administrators who configure it, with audit covered by three of more than 30 available applications and every action owner working for free. Optro is an audit-native suite that grew out of a SOX testing tool, priced per auditor and per module, with more than a decade of workpaper, tickmarking and reporting features built specifically for the job. The short answer: choose LogicGate if you want to build your own methodology on a platform that will also run enterprise risk, third-party risk and compliance; choose Optro if you want an audit and SOX system that already knows what a workpaper, a review note and an audit committee deck are supposed to look like.
This comparison covers what each product actually is on paper, where their SOX, analytics, AI and cost structures genuinely differ, the twelve-area scorecard and fit-by-situation ratings side by side, and a five-year cost illustration built from the public record. It is one of the comparisons in the site’s independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software, and it follows the evidence levels and scorecard described in how we review audit software. The full LogicGate Risk Cloud review and Optro review cover each product in depth for anyone who wants one platform rather than the two side by side.
Verdict. Optro is the more finished audit tool out of the box; LogicGate is the more flexible platform if audit is one of several programs you want to run on the same records. Neither is a poor choice for a function that has already decided it wants a configurable, workflow-driven system rather than Excel or an audit-only product. The real decision is how much of the audit methodology you want to build yourself and how many other risk and compliance programs will share the platform.
Choose LogicGate if. your organization already runs, or plans to run, several GRC programs (enterprise risk, third-party risk, AI governance, business continuity) and wants audit on the same record graph; you have a capable administrator and would rather pay only for the people who build the platform than for every tester; or you want the most specific published statement of which AI models process your data and how long they keep it.
Choose Optro if. you want workpapers, tickmarking, certification workflows and audit committee dashboards that already work the way an audit-native product expects them to; SOX is the center of gravity and you want one control library serving both programs; or your function is large enough that unlimited free stakeholder licenses matter more than a low administrator headcount.
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. No public list price for either product; quote only. Vendr’s marketplace data, checked for this guide on 26 September 2026, puts LogicGate’s median contract at $53,784 a year (range $12,294 to $136,130). Vendr’s data for Optro, updated February 2026, puts its median at $45,947 a year (range $21,220 to $111,208, 86 purchases). AuditBoard’s November 2023 bid to the West Virginia Department of Transportation priced 25 core users at $164,000 a year.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- LogicGate and Optro 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 LogicGate and Optro
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
LogicGate and Optro in one table
The table below draws on each vendor’s own documentation, the site’s LogicGate review and Optro review, and the public procurement record; the ratings and price evidence match what each review already carries, so nothing here contradicts the page you would find by reading either product on its own.
| Attribute | LogicGate Risk Cloud | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Private, venture and PE-backed; PSG led a $113 million Series C in 2021; new CEO Diego Panama from July 2026 | Hg, a private equity firm (agreed 23 May 2024, more than $3 billion) |
| Category | No-code GRC platform; audit is 3 of 30-plus applications | Modular SaaS suite; audit is 1 of 10 products, the one the company was originally built around |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS) only | Cloud (SaaS) only |
| Audit and SOX modules | Internal Audit Management, Controls Compliance and SOX Compliance, each licensed as a separate application | Internal Audit (OpsAudit) and Controls Management (SOX, formerly SOXHUB), plus Autonomous Testing (from the Midship acquisition) |
| Pricing model | Applications plus Power Users, the people who build and administer them; Standard and External users are free | Per core user (auditor, tester or admin) and per module; stakeholder and auditee users are free and unlimited |
| Price evidence | Vendr median $53,784 a year, range $12,294 to $136,130 (checked 26 September 2026) | Vendr median $45,947 a year, range $21,220 to $111,208 (updated February 2026); a November 2023 bid priced 25 core users at $164,000 a year |
| User ratings | G2 4.6 from 191 reviews; Gartner Peer Insights 4.1 from 55 reviews in the Audit Management Solutions market | G2 4.6 from about 1,613 reviews; Gartner Peer Insights 4.5 from 890 in the same market |
| Analyst placements claimed | Leader, Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders (October 2025); Leader, Forrester Wave for GRC Platforms (Q2 2026) | The identical two claims: Leader in the same Gartner Magic Quadrant and the same Forrester Wave |
| Vendor viability | Private, PSG-backed since 2021, new operator CEO from July 2026; no acquisitions found | Hg-owned since 2024, more than $300 million in annual recurring revenue claimed, two acquisitions in the following 12 months |
Three things stand out before the detail. First, both companies claim the same two 2026 analyst placements, which says less than it appears to: neither the Magic Quadrant nor the Forrester Wave evaluates audit management specifically, both are GRC platform reports, and Gartner’s own April 2026 Market Guide for Audit Management Software warns buyers to be wary of vendor AI claims rather than ranking anyone. Second, the two vendors charge for fundamentally different people: Optro’s core-user fee falls on every auditor and tester who creates or edits work, while LogicGate’s Power User fee falls only on the administrators who build and configure the platform, with testers who complete assigned tasks and file reports able to work as free Standard users. How much of an audit team can actually work that way, rather than needing Power User seats, is worth testing in the demo rather than assuming from the pricing page. Third, LogicGate’s Vendr median sits above Optro’s, which surprises people expecting the configurable platform to be cheaper; the likely explanation is that LogicGate contracts typically bundle several applications across several functions, so audit’s share of a given contract may be a fraction of the total.
Where they are different
The table above is the shape of the decision; the sections below are the substance. Seven factors do most of the work when a shortlist comes down to these two products.
Configurable applications against audit-native modules
LogicGate’s Internal Audit Management application gives a function planning forms, shared repositories of audits, risks and controls, and workflows from planning to remediation, but it is a workflow you configure rather than an audit object the vendor shipped: no rolling multi-year plan, resourcing calendar, workpaper editor or review-note hierarchy appears in the documentation. Optro’s OpsAudit module starts from the opposite end. It ships a configurable audit universe, risk-aligned plans, resourcing optimization and Annotate, the tickmarking feature reviewers single out most, because the company built the product around exactly this workflow between 2014 and 2017 before broadening into risk, compliance and third-party modules. The site’s types of internal audit software guide places no-code GRC platforms and audit-native suites in separate categories for this reason, and the GRC suite versus standalone audit management comparison works through the trade-off in general terms.
The gap shows most clearly in planning. Optro’s resource planning, added to the SOX module in 2024, lets a manager schedule people across internal-control and operational projects in one calendar; the site’s annual risk assessment playbook describes the method that feature is built to serve. LogicGate has nothing equivalent documented: a function builds its universe as a record set, scores it with configured fields, and uses a report as the plan. That is a real cost in year one and a real advantage later, once the methodology is exactly what your function wants rather than what a vendor decided an audit universe should look like.
SOX and controls
Both vendors sell dedicated SOX products, and both have added an AI testing engine to them in 2026, but the heritage runs in opposite directions. Optro’s Controls Management is the direct descendant of SOXHUB, the company’s founding product, and it ships an out-of-the-box risk and control matrix, certification workflows tying management’s 302 and 404 attestations to evidence, and, since 6 May 2026, the Midship-derived Autonomous Testing engine that the company says automates up to 87 percent of SOX program management, a claim worth testing on your own control population before relying on it. LogicGate’s SOX Compliance and Controls Compliance applications cover processes, controls, risk assessments and remediation, automate evidence collection from HR and IT systems, and crosswalk 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. What LogicGate does not describe is deficiency evaluation and aggregation or the certification cascade that keeps controllers awake at quarter end; those exist as configuration on LogicGate and as shipped workflow on Optro, which is why the scorecard below rates SOX Strong for Optro and Adequate for LogicGate. The site’s SOX 404 guide explains the program both products are trying to support.
Analytics and automation
Neither product is an analytics tool, and that matters more for LogicGate than for Optro. LogicGate automates workflow, not data: Jobs that run on triggers, evidence collection from connected systems, and AI steps that grade evidence and link records, with no scripting language and no library of tests. Optro Analytics is a step further: a no-code, drag-and-drop layer with templates for common tests (anomaly detection, user access reviews, document matching) that can run on a schedule against more than 150 data connections, though it still has no ACL-style command language or Python notebook, and limited analytics and customization is the single most repeated complaint in Optro’s own G2 reviews. A team doing scripted, full-population testing keeps a dedicated tool on the side either way; the site’s audit analytics software comparison covers the candidates. That difference of degree, not kind, is why analytics-heavy teams get a Poor fit from LogicGate and only a Workable from Optro below.
AI: named models against a three-layer roadmap
The two companies have made opposite choices about what to disclose and what to build. LogicGate’s help center names its models (OpenAI’s gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-5-mini, whisper-1 and text-embedding-3-small), states that inputs and outputs are not used to train models, and gives a specific 30-day retention period under its own key; a customer can also supply its own OpenAI key. Optro’s AI page makes the same no-training and opt-in promises but names only “in-house machine learning plus Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI service”, without naming a model or a retention period. On disclosure, LogicGate is the more specific vendor, and the site’s auditor’s prompt library is a good check on what supervised use of either should look like day to day.
On what the AI actually does for audit, Optro is further along. Its roadmap runs from AuditBoard AI (24 April 2024, platform-wide drafting) through Accelerate (22 October 2025: an Audit Agent for risk-based sampling and evidence annotation, plus Document Intelligence) to Autonomous Testing (6 May 2026: agents that run SOX attribute tests, access reviews and bank reconciliations from raw evidence). LogicGate’s Automated Evidence Testing, available only in Controls Compliance and Internal Audit Management, grades an attachment against a written procedure and returns Pass, Fail or Insufficient with a rationale, which is useful but generic; none of LogicGate’s GRC Agents, covering third-party, enterprise, AI governance and business continuity risk, extends to internal audit as of September 2026. Both vendors shipped an MCP server in 2026 (LogicGate’s in September, Optro’s on 28 April) that lets a customer’s own AI assistant query platform data in natural language, and both should go through a security review before anyone turns it on.
| AI attribute | LogicGate | Optro |
|---|---|---|
| Named models | OpenAI: gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-5-mini, whisper-1, text-embedding-3-small; bring-your-own-key option | Not named; described as in-house machine learning plus Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI service |
| Data-use statement | Not used to train models; 30-day retention under LogicGate’s key; opt-in through an AI Control Center | Not used to train models; customers retain ownership of inputs and outputs; opt-in; actions logged |
| Audit-specific feature | None; Automated Evidence Testing grades attachments generically inside two applications | Audit Agent (sampling, annotation) and Autonomous Testing (SOX attribute tests, access reviews, reconciliations) |
| 2026 agent layer | GRC Agents for third-party, enterprise, AI governance and business continuity risk; none for audit | Autonomous Testing (from the Midship acquisition) for SOX program testing specifically |
| Natural-language data access | MCP server, September 2026 | MCP server, 28 April 2026 |
| Vendor claim to test yourself | Config Newton deploys applications 50 to 75 percent faster | Autonomous Testing automates up to 87 percent of SOX program management |
Reporting and integrations
LogicGate’s reporting runs through out-of-the-box dashboards, no-code custom reports and Risk Cloud Documents, a document generator, with Spark AI Reporting Insights summarizing a report and flagging outliers; Gartner Peer Insights reviewers specifically cite difficulty building table reports for metrics. Optro generates engagement reports directly from workpaper fields using hashtag-style references, ships more than 25 pre-built dashboards with row-level security, and connects to Power BI through what the company marketed as AuditBoard Intelligence; it claims audit committee report preparation time falls by up to 70 percent, a vendor figure, not ours. Integration lists have grown on both sides through 2026: LogicGate’s controls page names Jira, Workday and AWS Security Hub, with Smartsheet, Ironclad, Box and Microsoft Planner added in September; Optro names more than 150 connectors including Okta, Workday, Snowflake and Oracle. Whichever product a function chooses, a real audit committee deck, not a marketing screenshot, is the thing to ask for in the demo; the site’s demo script has the scenario.
Cost and contract structure
The per-user philosophy is the sharpest structural difference between these two products. Optro’s West Virginia bid works out to about $6,560 per core user a year for the first 25, before volume discounts, because every auditor who creates or edits work is a paid seat. LogicGate charges only Power Users, and its own review notes that an audit function typically needs two or three builders, because the person who configured the application eventually leaves; testers who complete assigned tasks and file reports can work as free Standard users if the methodology is built that way. Neither vendor publishes a price list. LogicGate’s Master Services Agreement, updated May 2026, auto-renews unless 30 days’ written non-renewal notice is given, sets no cap on renewal pricing, and grants 30 days to retrieve data after termination before deletion. Optro’s contracts, per Vendr’s data, typically carry 3 to 7 percent annual escalators and 10 to 30 percent implementation fees on top of the subscription, though the West Virginia bid shows a public-sector buyer can secure flat five-year pricing when it asks. Either way, the clause worth negotiating harder than the first-year discount is the one that caps the escalator and fixes the price of modules or Power User seats you expect to add later; the site’s internal audit software pricing guide sets both structures against the rest of the market.
What users say, head to head
Gartner Peer Insights segments its reviews by market, so each company’s score in the Audit Management Solutions market reflects people who bought the product for audit specifically: LogicGate’s 55 reviews there are a fraction of Optro’s 890, unsurprising given that Optro’s whole business grew out of an audit and SOX tool while LogicGate’s grew out of enterprise risk. G2 does not segment by use case, so both companies’ G2 scores describe reviewers across every application each platform sells, not only the auditors among them. Read the sample sizes before the averages: 55 reviews is a thin base for a workflow an entire quarter depends on, and LogicGate’s most recent critical Gartner Peer Insights review, from April 2026, specifically calls its AI “in its infancy” for an IT controls audit.
| Metric | LogicGate | Optro |
|---|---|---|
| Gartner Peer Insights, Audit Management Solutions market | 4.1 from 55 reviews | 4.5 from 890 reviews |
| G2, whole-product rating | 4.6 from 191 reviews | 4.6 from about 1,613 reviews |
| Most-cited praise | No-code flexibility; one platform for the whole GRC program | Ease of use; a single source of truth across audit and SOX |
| Most-cited complaint | Difficulty building table reports; effort to change configured applications | Limited analytics and customization |
Head to head: the scorecard
The 12 areas and four levels are the ones defined in how we review audit software; the levels below match those already published in each product’s own review, so nothing here contradicts either page read on its own.
| Area | LogicGate | Optro | What decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Adequate | Strong | Optro ships risk-scored, resourced planning; LogicGate gives you a record set and lets you build the plan as a report |
| Engagement workflow | Adequate | Strong | LogicGate’s workflow is a configurable generic process; Optro’s is standardized, reusable work programs built for audit |
| Workpapers and evidence | Adequate | Strong | Optro’s Annotate tickmarking is its most-praised feature; LogicGate has document storage and changelogs but no workpaper editor |
| Issues and follow-up | Strong | Strong | Both do this well: LogicGate through free Standard users as action owners, Optro through a platform-wide issue register |
| Reporting | Limited | Strong | Table reports are LogicGate’s most-cited complaint; Optro generates committee reports straight from workpaper fields |
| SOX and controls testing | Adequate | Strong | Optro’s SOXHUB heritage and Autonomous Testing outweigh LogicGate’s newer, still-configuration-heavy SOX application |
| Analytics and automation | Limited | Adequate | Neither has a scripting layer; Optro’s 150-plus connectors and no-code templates edge out LogicGate’s Jobs and evidence collection |
| AI features | Adequate | Strong | LogicGate is more specific about its models and data terms; Optro has actually shipped audit- and SOX-specific agents |
| Quality program support | Limited | Adequate | Neither ships QAIP metrics; workflow design can enforce steps on either platform, which is as far as it goes |
| Auditee experience | Strong | Strong | Free non-builder users on both sides: LogicGate’s Standard and External users, Optro’s unlimited stakeholder licenses |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong | Strong | LogicGate holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 with no FedRAMP claim; Optro claims FedRAMP requirements are met, not authorization |
| Cost and contract | Adequate | Adequate | LogicGate’s Power User model can be cheap per auditor but is opaque on headcount; Optro’s per-core-user model is transparent but adds up fast |
| Vendor viability | Adequate | Strong | Both are backed by private equity investors; Optro’s larger claimed revenue and two recent acquisitions show more scale and momentum |
Read the pattern, not just the letters: Optro is Strong or Adequate everywhere, with its two Adequates in the same places LogicGate is weakest (analytics and cost transparency). LogicGate is Strong only where a platform’s design, not an audit feature, does the work (issues, auditee experience, administration), and Limited in exactly the three areas a purpose-built audit product usually ships as standard: reporting, analytics and quality program support. Neither pattern is disqualifying; both are worth testing directly rather than taking on faith. The site’s demo script has scenarios for each of these areas.
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 | LogicGate | Optro | Why the difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Workable | Workable | LogicGate’s Vendr floor is lower ($12,294) but needs a builder; Optro’s floor is higher ($21,220) but arrives more finished |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both are built for this size; the decision turns on SOX weight and platform ambitions, not capability |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both hold up at scale: LogicGate on hosting footprint and flat Power User pricing, Optro on Fortune 500 references |
| SOX-heavy public company | Workable | Strong fit | Optro’s SOXHUB heritage and Autonomous Testing target this buyer directly; LogicGate’s SOX application is adequate, not primary |
| Bank or credit union | Workable | Strong fit | Optro carries bank references and SOC 1 reporting; LogicGate has a sound security posture but no regulated-industry audit content |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Workable | Workable | Optro edges ahead on HECVAT, TX-RAMP and new Carahsoft contract vehicles; neither has a confirmed FedRAMP authorization |
| Analytics-heavy team | Poor fit | Workable | LogicGate has no analytics engine at all; Optro’s no-code layer and 150-plus connectors are limited but real |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both are built for this, in different flavors: LogicGate risk-led and configure-everything, Optro audit-led with pre-built modules |
Only one row is a sharp disagreement: analytics-heavy teams. Everywhere else the two products are close enough that the choice should be made on the factors in the previous section, not on this table alone.
Total cost of ownership over five years
Neither vendor publishes a price list, so any five-year total has to be built from the public record rather than assumed. The figures below hold each vendor’s own verified numbers flat across five years; they do not add LogicGate’s unstated renewal terms or Optro’s typical 3 to 7 percent escalators, and they do not add Power User or module counts beyond what the source actually states, per the site’s rule against estimating a price ourselves. Where no public figure exists at a given scale, the table says so rather than filling the gap with an invented number.
| Scenario and source | LogicGate | Optro |
|---|---|---|
| Smallest verified deal, held flat for five years | Vendr’s published floor, $12,294 a year, times five years equals $61,470 (module and Power User count not stated) | Vendr’s published floor, $21,220 a year, times five years equals $106,100 (module and user mix not stated) |
| Typical verified deal (median), held flat for five years | Vendr’s median, $53,784 a year, times five years equals $268,920 | Vendr’s median, $45,947 a year, times five years equals $229,735 |
| Itemized deal, the vendor’s own published total | No public procurement record was found for LogicGate at any headcount, so no itemized total is published here — | West Virginia DOT bid: $990,750 over five years for 25 core users, including implementation and service allowances (AuditBoard’s own published total) |
Two things follow. First, LogicGate’s median sitting above Optro’s in flat, unweighted Vendr data is a real finding, not a typo: it likely reflects multi-application GRC contracts rather than a pricier audit product, but a buyer pricing audit alone should not assume the median describes their deal. Second, Optro is the only one of the two with a public, itemized total at meaningful scale; a function evaluating LogicGate for a similar-sized deployment should treat the Vendr range as a guide and insist on a detailed, itemized quote covering Power User count, application list and services before comparing totals. The site’s internal audit software pricing guide applies the same method to every other product in this section.
Migration between them
No public case study describes a customer moving directly between LogicGate and Optro in either direction, so treat what follows as general guidance rather than 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 file format, sign-off history and audit trail are built for its own product; a workflow built as configured records and statuses on LogicGate has no direct equivalent to import into Optro’s Annotate-tagged evidence files, and the reverse is just as awkward. Before signing with either vendor, get the export terms in writing: LogicGate’s Master Services Agreement grants 30 days to retrieve data after termination, after which it may be deleted; Optro’s West Virginia bid confirms exports in ZIP, PDF and CSV, with no stated retrieval window beyond the contract term. The site’s guide to implementing audit management software covers the first 120 days either migration requires.
Our recommendation
Start with what your function actually is, not with which vendor’s sales team called first. A function that wants audit and SOX to share one control library, that values workpapers and committee reporting arriving finished, or that runs in a bank, credit union or SOX-heavy public company should shortlist Optro first and use LogicGate as the platform-flexibility alternative to weigh against it. A function whose risk, compliance and third-party programs are already asking to consolidate onto one system, or whose administrator would rather configure a methodology than accept a vendor’s, should shortlist LogicGate first and use Optro as the audit-native alternative to test it against.
Two situations settle the question outright. If the requirement is scripted, full-population analytics as the center of the system, neither product is the answer, but Optro’s no-code layer and connector count come closer than LogicGate having none. If the requirement is a single record graph spanning enterprise risk, third-party risk, AI governance and audit, with the audit team paying only for its administrators, LogicGate’s design fits that specific ask in a way Optro’s audit-first, per-core-user architecture does not. Everywhere else, run both through the site’s vendor-neutral RFP method and demo script before deciding on price alone, and if neither product turns out to be the fit, the Optro alternatives page and the Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver comparison cover the rest of the mid-market field.
Questions about LogicGate and Optro
Why do some searches still say “LogicGate vs AuditBoard”?
AuditBoard renamed itself Optro on 9 March 2026, and search habits have not caught up: people still type “LogicGate vs AuditBoard” more often than “LogicGate vs Optro”. The product, the contracts and the ownership did not change with the name; only the name did. LogicGate’s own comparison content and G2’s category pages still reference AuditBoard as well.
Which is cheaper, LogicGate or Optro?
In Vendr’s flat medians, Optro is cheaper: $45,947 a year against LogicGate’s $53,784. At the low end the gap narrows and may reverse, since LogicGate’s floor ($12,294) undercuts Optro’s ($21,220), but LogicGate’s cheapest deals likely reflect a single application and a light module mix rather than a full audit deployment. Neither figure is a quote; both vendors price by module or application plus the specific user counts you need, so treat these numbers as a starting point for negotiation, not a budget.
Can LogicGate do SOX as well as Optro?
It can run a controls program, and its Provision 29 workflow with PwC is a genuine 2026 addition, but it is a newer, more configuration-heavy application next to Optro’s SOXHUB-descended Controls Management and its Autonomous Testing engine. A SOX-heavy public company should treat Optro and Workiva as the primary shortlist and LogicGate as a secondary option unless the appeal is running SOX on the same no-code platform as everything else.
Does either vendor train its AI on our data?
Both say no. LogicGate’s help center names the OpenAI models it uses and states that, under its own key, inputs and outputs are retained for 30 days and not used to train models; a customer may use its own key instead. Optro’s AI page states that customer data is not used to train its models, that customers retain ownership of inputs and outputs, and that AI actions are logged; it names only “in-house machine learning plus Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI service” rather than a specific model. Get whichever statement applies into the contract or data processing agreement rather than relying on the marketing page.
Which is better for a small audit team?
Neither is the cheapest option at one to five auditors; both rate Workable, not Strong, in that situation. LogicGate’s free Standard users help if the team can genuinely operate without Power User seats, but someone still has to build the audit application from scratch. Optro arrives more finished but starts higher in Vendr’s data. A team this size should also price Onspring and TeamMate’s Essentials edition before either of these; the site’s types of internal audit software guide is a good starting map of the field.
Can we run enterprise risk and audit on the same platform with either one?
Yes with both, but the designs differ. LogicGate was built for this from the start: Enterprise Risk Management, Third-Party Risk Management, AI Governance and Business Continuity are applications on the same record graph as Internal Audit Management, each licensed and configured separately. Optro added the equivalent modules (RiskOversight, CrossComply, TPRM, BCM, AI Governance) around its original audit and SOX products, so the audit workflow is more finished and the second-line modules are the newer additions. Either way, this is a different question from compliance automation tools such as Vanta or Drata, which the site’s internal audit software versus compliance automation comparison explains are not a substitute for either platform.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with LogicGate, Optro 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
- 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 the founding-year discrepancy (accessed 26 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).
- Press release, 1 September 2026: LogicGate Summer 2026 release — GRC Agents, Automated Control Testing, the MCP server and Provision 29 (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 rating from 55 reviews and its themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: LogicGate marketplace page — median contract value and range (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Meet Optro: AuditBoard unveils new identity (PR Newswire, 9 March 2026) — the rebrand date and the analyst claims Optro repeats (accessed 26 September 2026).
- AuditBoard agrees to be acquired by Hg (Hg, 23 May 2024) — deal value, ownership and customer claims at the buyout (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Optro: AI and LLM information page — naming dates, module list, revenue and customer claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Optro trust and security page — certifications, hosting and the FedRAMP requirements statement (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: AuditBoard (Optro) marketplace page — median contract value, range and negotiation notes, updated February 2026 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- AuditBoard bid response to West Virginia DOT, CRFQ 0803 DOT2400000036 (November 2023) — the itemized 25-user price and five-year total (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Audit Management Solutions market — Optro’s 4.5 rating from 890 reviews and market-level context (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.
- LogicGate Risk Cloud review — the full review: applications, SOX, AI data use and pricing.
- Optro (formerly AuditBoard) review — the full review: modules, AI, pricing and user themes.
- Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver — the mid-market GRC shortlist for audit teams.
- Optro vs TeamMate — AuditBoard’s successor against the audit classic.
- Optro vs Workiva — the comparison more buyers search for than this one.
- Optro vs Diligent One — GRC breadth against Diligent’s ACL analytics heritage.
- Optro (AuditBoard) alternatives — ten options by team size and budget if Optro is not the fit.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit management software — the consolidation decision behind LogicGate’s design.
- Internal audit software vs compliance automation — why Vanta and Drata are not on this shortlist at all.
- Types of internal audit software — where no-code GRC platforms and audit-native suites actually differ.
- Internal audit software pricing — every price in this comparison, set beside the rest of the market.
- Selecting an audit management system — the vendor-neutral RFP method to run before you sign either contract.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios that make either vendor show, not tell.
- Evaluating AI in audit software — what is real and what is agent-washing.
Leave a Reply