Onspring is the no-code GRC platform from Overland Park, Kansas, that sells a packaged internal audit product rather than asking auditors to build one. For a first system in a small or mid-size function, or for a team that wants audit, risk, compliance and third-party work on one platform without an enterprise-suite price, it is the strongest mid-market option in this program. The one thing to know before you shortlist it: Onspring is a platform first and an audit product second. The audit product is a set of configured applications, which is why customers praise its flexibility and why the most common complaint on G2 is a steep learning curve for whoever administers it.
This review covers what Onspring is and who owns it, the modules and how audit fits, a walkthrough by audit stage, SOX and controls, analytics and integrations, the AI shipped in 2025 and 2026, our 12-area scorecard, fit by situation, price evidence, what verified reviewers say, implementation, and how it compares with LogicGate, Resolver and Optro (formerly AuditBoard). It is part of the site’s independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software and follows the evidence rules in how we review audit software. If you are choosing between the three mid-market platforms, the Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver comparison puts them side by side.
Verdict
Onspring is one of the best-rated and best-value internal audit platforms for functions of one to 25 auditors that also want room to grow into GRC, and a credible public-sector choice because its GovCloud edition holds a FedRAMP Moderate authorization. It is not the platform for analytics-heavy teams, and large global functions should test methodology enforcement and multi-entity administration hard before committing.
Best for. A first system for a small team; mid-size functions; public sector, higher education and nonprofit audit shops; organizations consolidating risk, compliance and audit on one platform.
Not for. Teams whose work is full-population testing and continuous monitoring; SOX-centric public companies that want a SOX-native product; functions of 25 or more auditors that need an enforced methodology out of the box.
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 the product hands-on for this review.
Price evidence. Vendr’s buyer data, viewed 26 September 2026, puts the median Onspring contract at $33,808 a year, with a range of $9,972 to $55,810. Onspring publishes its pricing model (by user, by product or hybrid, plus Bronze to Platinum platform levels) but no list prices.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- What Onspring is, and who owns it
- What you get: modules and how audit fits
- Walkthrough by audit stage
- SOX and controls
- Analytics, integrations and automation
- AI: what is real
- The scorecard
- Fit by situation
- Pricing and contract
- What users say
- Implementation and migration
- How it compares
- Questions about Onspring
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
What Onspring is, and who owns it
Onspring Technologies, LLC was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, in the Kansas City suburbs. Its About page lists two co-founders, Chris Pantaenius and Chad Kreimendahl, both titled co-founder and CEO, and a May 2023 press release described the company as founder-owned and led. That matters: AuditBoard was bought by Hg and became Optro, HighBond became Diligent One, StandardFusion became TeamMate Risk & Compliance, while Onspring has kept its name, founders and product line.
The outside money is minority growth capital, not a buyout. Capital IP Investment Partners made a strategic investment on 9 May 2023, for an undisclosed amount, to fund product development and hiring; its release of 15 July 2026 describes a follow-on in 2025 and an expanded investment in 2026, again undisclosed, and calls Onspring a no-code GRC provider serving Fortune 500 customers across more than 25 industries.
Treat the user-count claims as marketing: the About page says 250,000 users and a 99.8% annual renewal rate, while earlier releases said more than 550,000 users (January 2023 and April 2024) and close to two million (August 2024). The better evidence is the case-study library, eight entries of which are tagged internal audit, including Telephone and Data Systems, Williams, Warner Bros. Discovery and the University of Virginia’s Office of Audit & Compliance. Onspring’s awards page says it has topped Info-Tech’s SoftwareReviews GRC quadrant for six years running; Gartner has no Magic Quadrant for audit management, and the site’s guide to reading audit software analyst reports explains how much weight a SoftwareReviews placement carries. The timeline below is built from Onspring’s releases, the FedRAMP Marketplace and its investor’s announcements.
| Date | Event | Why it matters to an audit buyer |
|---|---|---|
| 19 January 2023 | Onspring GovCloud receives the FedRAMP In Process designation, sponsored by the Tennessee Valley Authority | Start of the federal track; the sponsor is a real agency customer |
| 9 May 2023 | Capital IP Investment Partners makes a strategic investment (amount undisclosed) | Growth capital; founders keep control |
| 27 March 2024 | FedRAMP Moderate authorization listed on the Marketplace (Rev5, agency path, one ATO); Onspring’s release was dated 2 April, and its pages now say FedRAMP Certified Class C, formerly Moderate Authorized | GovCloud becomes buyable by federal agencies, through four resellers including Carahsoft |
| 28 August 2024 | Platform version 30.0 adds Microsoft 365 for the web co-authoring | Word, Excel and PowerPoint attachments edited in place |
| 14 October 2025 | Onspring AI launches as an add-on, built on Anthropic’s Claude models | Tickmarking, summaries, field suggestions and OCR arrive in the audit product |
| 15 July 2026 | Capital IP announces an expanded investment (amount undisclosed) | Runway for the roadmap; ownership unchanged |
| 27 July 2026 | Agentic GRC announced: agents within administrator-defined guardrails | The feature set to scrutinize in any 2026 demo |
What you get: modules and how audit fits
Onspring sells one platform and a catalog of products built on it. Every product is a set of applications, fields, workflows, reports and dashboards that a customer administrator can change without code, and the same tooling builds applications from nothing. That is the defining trait of the no-code GRC category; the site’s guide to the types of internal audit software explains how it differs from an audit-native platform such as Optro and from an enterprise suite such as Archer.
| Product | What it does, per Onspring’s product pages | Why an audit team cares |
|---|---|---|
| Internal Audit Management (Audit & Assurance) | Audit universe and coverage mapping, resourcing and budgets, linked workpapers with multi-level sign-off, review notes, findings, surveys and evidence requests, external auditor portal, final reports | The product this review is about |
| Risk Management | Central risk register, automated assessments, prioritized analysis | Feeds audit universe scoring; shared with the second line |
| Compliance Management | Control library mapped to SOX, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, NIST, CMMC and SOC 2; design and operating tests, gap assessments, exceptions, evidence locker | Where SOX testing lives |
| Policy Management | Policy library, authoring, approvals, attestations, exceptions | Findings link to policies |
| Third-Party Risk Management | Vendor onboarding, assessments, inherent and residual risk, mitigation tracking | Third-party audits and reliance |
| Incident Management; Business Resiliency Management | Incident intake and corrective actions; continuity and disaster recovery plans and exercises | Risk assessment inputs; resilience audits |
| Regulatory Change, Data Privacy and CMMC 2.0 Management | Regulatory intelligence and impact assessments; privacy program tooling; CMMC requirement mapping | Specialist programs audit reads rather than owns |
| GovCloud (OMB A-123, POA&M) | FedRAMP Moderate hosting, with federal apps for A-123 controls and plans of action and milestones | The edition public-sector buyers should ask for |
| Onspring AI (add-on) | Generative and agentic features across products; requires the Silver platform level or higher | Tickmarking, summaries and field suggestions |
How audit fits depends on the licensing model. Onspring’s pricing page offers three: by users, where you define the number of users and get every product; by products, where you get unlimited employee users but only the products you license; and a hybrid. An audit function buying alone can license the internal audit product and give every action-plan owner a login at no per-seat cost; a function buying for the three lines does the same with more products. That is why Onspring rates a strong fit both for a first system and for consolidating GRC, a combination few products manage; the site’s GRC suite versus standalone audit software comparison works through when consolidation is worth doing. And because the platform is open, some customers use the packaged audit product and others build their own, as the University of Virginia’s case study describes: the product is a starting point, and the outcome depends on the administrator.
Walkthrough by audit stage
What follows is drawn from Onspring’s product pages and case studies; we have not operated the software. Product documentation sits behind a customer login at help.onspring.com, so ask for the audit product’s help content and recent release notes during due diligence, as the site’s audit software due diligence guide recommends.
Planning and risk assessment
The audit product holds an auditable entity library mapped to the organization’s programs and functions, with an annual coverage map showing which entities are planned, in progress and complete. The product page lists resource allocation, workload forecasting, skills-based assignment and budget tracking, and says risk assessment insights feed planning directly. UVA describes loading the approved annual plan at the start of the year so leadership can see progress against it. The site’s guides to building the audit universe and the annual internal audit risk assessment describe what the library and scoring model should contain before you configure them.
Engagement and fieldwork
Each engagement carries milestones, tasks with owners, due dates and dependencies, and automated reminders and escalations for overdue tasks, evidence requests and review notes. Evidence collection runs through surveys and request workflows that send stakeholders a secure link, and an evidence locker stores a submission once and maps it to several audits. External auditors can be given portal access. The GIAS expectation that engagement work be planned, documented and supervised (the site’s Global Internal Audit Standards reference map covers Domain V) is met by configuration, not a fixed methodology: a function that wants one planning memo, one matrix layout and one test-step structure on every engagement has to build those templates and lock them.
Workpapers and review
Workpapers are records linked to the entity, engagement, control and finding, with multi-level sign-offs and review notes tracked as their own items, so a manager sees open notes, budget adherence and task status on one dashboard. Since version 30.0 in August 2024, Word, Excel and PowerPoint attachments can be co-authored inside the platform through Microsoft 365 for the web, which UVA calls its favorite feature. What the public pages do not describe is the versioning and retention model, the lockdown of a signed-off file, or how an edit history is exported for an external quality assessment. Ask to see a completed, locked workpaper and its history; the site’s annotated workpaper examples show what a finished file must contain.
Issues and follow-up
Findings are tracked and prioritized, related directly to controls and policies, and carry remediation plans and follow-up tasks. Reminders and escalations are automated, and management updates arrive through the same request workflows used for evidence, so action-plan owners need no auditor login. This is where the architecture serves audit best: issues, controls, risks, policies and vendors are records in one database, so an aging report by owner is a report, not a project. The site’s finding and issue log template lists the fields to settle before configuring the finding record.
Reporting
Final reports come out of templates in PDF or Word, and dashboards are built from configurable widgets and filters. UVA keeps templates whose wording changes by school; Williams says individual users build their own reports. The counterweight comes from reviewers: a minority on Capterra liken dashboard layouts to a glorified Excel table and mention limited visualization options. Expect functional, table-driven reporting that a good administrator can make presentable rather than the designed board pack an audit-native platform ships; the site’s audit committee deck template is the standard to hold the output to.
SOX and controls
Onspring does not sell a SOX product. SOX work runs in the Compliance Management product: a control library mapped to regulations, standards and frameworks and related to risks and policies; design and operating tests with multi-level review and approval workflows, gap assessments, exceptions and mitigation plans; and the evidence locker that lets one piece of evidence satisfy several frameworks. Onspring AI, on the compliance page, drafts control statements and testing procedures, reviews submitted evidence for anomalies such as missing timestamps, and drafts the finding when a test fails. Williams uses the platform for SOX alongside internal audit, and Warner Bros. Discovery’s case study is tagged SOX; both are vendor-published.
What the public material does not show is an ICFR-specific layer: top-down scoping by materiality and location, deficiency aggregation and severity evaluation, management’s assessment roll-up, or a reliance workflow for the external auditor. All of it can be configured, but a public company whose program centers on 404 should weigh that effort against Optro or Workiva, where the workflow ships; the site’s guides to SOX 404 and evaluating control deficiencies describe what the configuration would have to reproduce.
Analytics, integrations and automation
The word analytics does a lot of work on Onspring’s pages, so separate three things. Workflow automation is strong: triggers, conditional routing, reminders, escalations and record creation are the platform’s core, and G2 reviewers cite it as a top strength. Reporting on data held in Onspring is also strong. What Onspring does not offer is an audit analytics engine. The product page says non-technical auditors can run analytics across complete data populations without writing code; on the evidence available, that means reporting over data loaded into Onspring records and monitoring of connected sources, not the scripted tests the site’s accounts payable analytics catalog describes. Teams that need those keep IDEA, Arbutus, ACL, Alteryx or Python alongside and attach the results, as UVA describes doing; the site’s audit analytics software comparison covers the options.
Integration is better documented than analytics. Onspring API V2 has a public Swagger definition covering apps, fields, files, lists, records and reports: enough to load populations, push findings to a ticketing system or feed Power BI, though it is a records API rather than an audit-specific one, so budget developer time. Native integrations listed on Onspring’s site cover Microsoft 365 for the web co-authoring, OneDrive and Google Drive file references, Jira issue push, Slack messages and workflow starts, in-platform e-signing, and third-party data feeds for cyber ratings, financial health and regulatory content that each need a content-provider subscription.
Security facts come from Onspring’s security page and the FedRAMP Marketplace: an annual SOC 2 Type II attestation, Cloud Security Alliance STAR Level One, external and internal penetration testing, and a GovCloud edition authorized at FedRAMP Moderate. The security page does not detail single sign-on, multi-factor authentication or data residency; third-party listings reference SAML integration, but confirm it in writing, with the hosting region and the export format you would receive at termination.
AI: what is real
Onspring’s AI arrived in two steps. Onspring AI launched on 14 October 2025 as a licensed add-on available with the Silver platform level or higher, built on Anthropic’s Claude family of models and governed, per the announcement, by an internal AI Governance Council. Platform-wide it offers predictive text, field generation, record creation, duplicate detection, OCR with summarization and a Prompt Workbench for adding business context. The audit product page names the audit versions: AI tickmarking to speed documentation and standardize review procedures across engagements, auto-summaries of testing results, intelligent field suggestions as auditors write procedures and findings, and automated checks that trace a control failure across related processes. The platform AI page adds that AI is opt-in and scoped, that administrators set the rules, and that every action lives as a record in Onspring.
Agentic GRC, announced on 27 July 2026, moves from assistant features to agents that automate rule-based workflows and decisions within administrator-defined guardrails: automatic documentation review when a file is attached, auto-generated third-party follow-ups, policy review against organizational standards, enterprise-wide risk exposure analysis across audits, assessments and incident logs, and deployment of vetted prompts across environments. Ryan Lougheed, Onspring’s VP of Platform, said in the release that every action stays visible and auditable inside the platform. It, too, runs on Claude.
Our caution has three parts. First, none of the pages we read states how customer data is handled by the models: whether prompts and documents are retained, whether they train anything, or where they are processed. Gartner’s April 2026 Market Guide for Audit Management Software warns buyers to be particularly wary of agent-washing; get a written data-use statement before any pilot, using the questions in the site’s guide to evaluating AI in audit software. Second, a tickmark asserts that a procedure was performed, so insist on seeing what an AI tickmark links to, how a reviewer tells it from a human one, and how it is removed. Third, the agentic features are two months old and no case study yet describes them in an audit context; treat them as roadmap and test them with the AI scenarios in the demo script. The site’s review of AI tools for internal audit shows what the rest of the market ships.
The scorecard
The 12 areas and four levels are the ones used across every review in this guide. Where a capability is configurable rather than shipped, the evidence column says so.
| Area | Level | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Risk assessment and planning | Strong | Entity library, coverage map, resourcing, skills-based assignment and budget tracking; risk register feeds planning |
| 2. Engagement workflow | Strong | Milestones, tasks with dependencies, multi-level sign-off, review notes, escalations; methodology templates must be configured |
| 3. Workpapers and evidence | Adequate | Linked workpapers, evidence locker, Microsoft 365 co-authoring; versioning, lockdown and retention not described publicly |
| 4. Issues and follow-up | Strong | Findings linked to controls and policies, remediation plans, automated escalations, portal for owners |
| 5. Reporting | Adequate | Configurable dashboards and PDF or Word templates; reviewers note visualization limits |
| 6. SOX and controls testing | Adequate | Control library, design and operating tests, evidence locker; no shipped ICFR scoping or deficiency-evaluation layer |
| 7. Analytics and automation | Limited | Strong workflow automation and a public API; no scripted full-population testing engine |
| 8. AI features | Adequate | Onspring AI (October 2025) and Agentic GRC (July 2026) on Claude, opt-in and logged; no public data-use statement |
| 9. Quality program support | Adequate | Methodology enforced through configured workflows and dashboards; nothing purpose-built for QAIP metrics |
| 10. Auditee experience | Strong | Survey and request workflows, secure evidence submission, external auditor portal, no per-seat cost for owners under product licensing |
| 11. Administration, integrations and security | Strong | No-code administration, SOC 2 Type II, CSA STAR Level One, FedRAMP Moderate GovCloud, API V2, Microsoft 365, Jira, Slack; SSO, MFA and residency not on the public security page |
| 12. Cost and contract | Strong | Published pricing model, unlimited employee users under product licensing, implementation included in some models, Vendr median $33,808; 2024 price increase noted by Vendr’s community |
| Vendor viability | Favorable | Founder-owned since 2010, minority growth capital from Capital IP, no rebrands; smaller than Optro or Wolters Kluwer, so acquisition is the long-run risk |
Quality program support is Adequate rather than Limited because the reporting can produce every metric the site’s QAIP playbook lists once someone configures them. Cost is Strong because the model is transparent and the evidence sits well below the audit-native platforms, not because Onspring is cheap.
Fit by situation
The eight situations are the same across every review and comparison in this guide, and the ratings below are the ones used on the comparison and hub pages.
| Situation | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Strong fit | Unlimited employee users under product licensing, implementation included in some models, a Vendr low end of $9,972 and no-code administration; budget for the learning curve |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | The core customer profile in the case studies; planning, workflow, follow-up and reporting scale to this size without add-ons |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Workable | Enterprise customers exist, but methodology enforcement, data residency and workpaper governance at scale are not documented publicly; only 16 audit-market reviews on Gartner Peer Insights |
| SOX-heavy public company | Workable | Controls testing and the evidence locker work well; ICFR scoping, deficiency evaluation and external-auditor reliance must be configured |
| Bank or credit union | Workable | SOC 2 Type II, a FedRAMP Moderate hosting option and insurers among customers; regulatory issue tracking is configuration, and few bank case studies are published |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Strong fit | FedRAMP Moderate GovCloud with A-123 and POA&M apps, a TVA sponsorship, resellers including Carahsoft, and the University of Virginia case study |
| Analytics-heavy team | Poor fit | No scripted analytics or full-population testing engine; pair with IDEA, Arbutus, ACL or Python |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | Risk, compliance, policy, third-party, incident and resiliency products share one database; product licensing with unlimited employee users is built for this |
Read the first and last rows together: few products suit both a five-person audit team and a three-lines consolidation, and Onspring does because the same platform and licensing model serve both. The site’s guides to audit software for small teams and audit software for banks and credit unions go deeper on the first and fifth rows.
Pricing and contract
Onspring publishes its pricing structure and none of its prices. The public evidence, with provenance, is below; the site’s internal audit software pricing guide sets these figures against the rest of the market.
| Source | Date | Figure | What it covered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vendr marketplace page | Viewed 26 September 2026 | Median $33,808 a year; range $9,972 to $55,810 | Onspring contracts in Vendr’s buyer data; no deal count or last-updated date shown |
| Vendr community notes | Undated, from companies with 201 to 1,000 employees | A price increase in 2024; best discounts on multi-year deals; a flat rate held for two-year agreements; in-house implementation $50 to $75 an hour more than a solutions partner | Negotiation experience reported by Vendr’s buyers |
| Onspring pricing page | September 2026 | No figures | Three licensing models, four platform levels, AI add-on; extra storage and training seats can be bought later |
| Public procurement records | — | None found with amounts | Federal buyers purchase through resellers, so agency prices are not on the open web |
The model has three steps: the licensing model (by users, by products or hybrid), the platform level, which bundles services, environments and support rather than features, and the optional Onspring AI license, available from Silver upward. The platform levels, from Onspring’s pricing page, are below.
| Platform level | Support | Environments and data | Training and other inclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bronze | Live support 12 hours a day, 5 days a week; under one day response | Production only; foundational storage; 24×7 disaster recovery | No-code admin, SaaS upgrades, vendor risk data connectors, online community, web training, 2 admin classroom seats and 2 Connect conference seats a year |
| Silver | As Bronze | Adds a non-production department environment, more storage and 1,000 SMS messages a month | As Bronze; makes the Onspring AI add-on available |
| Gold | Under 60 minutes response | Adds database refresh 4 times a year and 5 IP firewall rule changes a year | 3 admin classroom seats and 3 conference seats a year |
| Platinum | Live support 24×7 with weekend on-call; dedicated Slack channel | Adds development, test and sandbox environments, database refresh 8 times a year, 8 firewall rule changes, maximum storage and API calls | 5 admin classroom seats and 5 conference seats a year |
Three things follow. A function that will configure its own templates should not accept Bronze, because testing a workflow change in production is how review notes disappear. The AI add-on, extra storage, SMS volume, training seats, third-party content subscriptions and any implementation beyond what the licensing model includes cost extra; get each priced on the order form. And since Vendr’s buyers report a 2024 price increase, ask for a renewal cap in writing and for the data export format and cost at termination. The site’s vendor-neutral RFP method has a pricing-structure section built for this conversation.
What users say
Onspring’s review profile is small but consistently high. On G2 it holds 4.7 from 80 reviews in the GRC platforms and enterprise risk management categories. On Gartner Peer Insights it holds 4.7 from 49 reviews across the four markets in which it is listed; 31 of those and a 4.8 rating sit in the integrated risk management market, while the Audit Management Solutions market shows 4.5 from 16 reviews. Capterra shows 4.8 from 105 reviews, with ease of use at 4.7, customer service at 5.0 and the most recent review dated 15 October 2025. Read all three as reviews of the platform by GRC administrators as much as by auditors.
| Theme | Praise or complaint | Where seen |
|---|---|---|
| Customization and configurability | Praise: build exactly the workflow you need without developers | G2 (customization 22 mentions, customizability 21); Capterra |
| Ease of use | Praise: intuitive for end users and administrators | G2 (22 mentions); Capterra ease of use 4.7 |
| Customer support | Praise: responsive and knowledgeable; Williams says guidance came without a bill for every question | G2 (14 mentions); Capterra customer service 5.0 |
| Automation and workflow | Praise: triggers, notifications and workflow flexibility | G2 (features 13 mentions) |
| Learning curve | Complaint: the flexibility creates a steep learning curve; one reviewer says some modules require additional technical knowledge or formulas for configuration | G2 (10 mentions); Capterra |
| Complex configuration and setup | Complaint: initial setup and advanced customization take time and support involvement | G2 (difficult setup 5, complexity 5); Capterra |
| Limits on customization or missing features | Complaint: specific areas cannot be changed; survey scheduling and e-signature cited as absent | G2 (limited customization 7, limitations 6); Capterra |
| Report and dashboard visuals; cost | Complaint: layouts likened to a glorified Excel table, limited visualization options; one reviewer questions price against functionality | Capterra, a minority of reviews |
The pattern is the no-code pattern: the property that earns the praise produces the complaints, because someone has to do the configuring and learn the formula language advanced fields use. Name your administrator before you buy. The e-signature complaint appears to predate the in-platform e-signing integration Onspring now lists, a reminder to check review dates.
Implementation and migration
Onspring does not publish a typical implementation timeline for the audit product. It does publish that implementation is included depending on the licensing model, that administration needs no IT resources, and that web training, admin classroom seats and Connect conference seats come with every platform level. Vendr’s buyers add that Onspring’s in-house implementation team is offered first and costs $50 to $75 an hour more than a solutions partner, who can be contracted on the same order form. Williams, a Tulsa energy company with 5,000 or more employees, says in its vendor-published case study that its project finished under time and under budget and, after customizing heavily at first to mimic an old homegrown system, that new teams should start with Onspring’s structure and adjust in small steps.
Migration is a data question and a design question. The data question is straightforward: the entity library, the open findings register and the current-year plan load from spreadsheets, and the API’s records and files endpoints handle bulk history. The design question decides the outcome: settle the planning memo, the matrix layout, the test-step structure, the finding fields and the report shells first, then configure once. The site’s guide to implementing audit management software lays out the first 120 days, and the planning memo template and risk and control matrix template are the two documents to have in hand before the first configuration workshop. For a small team the administrator is often the audit manager, and the hours come out of fieldwork.
How it compares
LogicGate Risk Cloud. The closest rival: another no-code platform with an Internal Audit Management app, free standard and external users, a Leader placement claimed in Gartner’s October 2025 Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders, and a new CEO since July 2026. Vendr’s median for LogicGate is $53,784 a year against Onspring’s $33,808, and its G2 rating is 4.6 from 191 reviews against Onspring’s 4.7 from 80. LogicGate has the larger footprint; Onspring has the more audit-specific packaged product and the FedRAMP edition. See the LogicGate Risk Cloud review.
Resolver. Kroll-owned since March 2022, with an internal audit module whose published templates still cite the IPPF rather than the Global Internal Audit Standards, and a Vendr average of about $32,471 from few deals, so a similar price band at low confidence. Audit is one module among many next to security, incident and investigations work. See the Resolver review.
Optro (formerly AuditBoard). The audit-native market leader, renamed on 9 March 2026, Hg-owned, with 4.5 from 890 Gartner Peer Insights reviews and a Vendr median of $45,947 a year. Optro ships the SOX, audit and reporting workflows Onspring asks you to configure, but it costs more, licenses per user and per module, and is a weaker home for the second line’s work. Start with the Optro review, or the Optro alternatives list if you are leaving it.
TeamMate and Diligent One. TeamMate (Wolters Kluwer) is the audit classic with a strong public-sector base and a documented low-end price point, and it competes with Onspring for government and higher-education buyers who do not need GRC breadth; the FedRAMP Marketplace lists TeamMate Audit and Controls as authorized at the Moderate level since 13 May 2022, matching Onspring GovCloud’s own Moderate authorization, though TeamMate’s own product page still says the status is upcoming. Diligent One brings the ACL analytics heritage and new audit agents, which covers the area where Onspring is weakest. See the TeamMate review, the Diligent One review and the best internal audit software by use case ranking.
Questions about Onspring
Is Onspring the same as Onspring GovCloud?
Same platform, different hosting and contract. Onspring GovCloud is the edition hosted in a FedRAMP-authorized environment (Moderate level, authorized in March 2024) with federal applications for OMB A-123 controls and plans of action and milestones, sold directly and through resellers such as Carahsoft. Customers that do not need FedRAMP buy the standard cloud platform; the internal audit product is the same in both.
How much does Onspring cost?
Onspring does not publish prices. Vendr’s buyer data, viewed 26 September 2026, shows a median of $33,808 a year and a range of $9,972 to $55,810. The price depends on the licensing model (by users, by products or hybrid), the platform level (Bronze to Platinum) and whether you add Onspring AI, which needs Silver or higher.
Is Onspring right for a small team?
Yes; it is one of the few platforms in this guide that rates a strong fit for a first system. Product licensing gives unlimited employee users, implementation is included in some models, and the low end of Vendr’s range is under $10,000 a year. The condition is that someone on the team owns configuration and has a non-production environment to learn in, which means Silver rather than Bronze.
Does Onspring AI use our audit data to train models?
Onspring says its AI runs on Anthropic’s Claude models, is opt-in and scoped, operates under an internal AI Governance Council and records every action in the platform. The pages we read do not state whether prompts, documents or outputs are retained or used for training, or where they are processed. Ask for that statement in writing before enabling the add-on, and put it in the contract.
Can Onspring do data analytics for audit testing?
Not in the sense an analytics-heavy team means. Onspring automates workflows, monitors connected data sources and reports across everything stored in its records, but it does not ship a scripted testing engine for duplicates, gaps, Benford’s law, stratification or joins across ERP extracts. Teams that need full-population testing run IDEA, Arbutus, ACL, Alteryx or Python alongside it and attach the output to the workpaper.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Onspring, LogicGate, Resolver, Optro, Wolters Kluwer, Diligent 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
- Onspring: Internal Audit Management Software — audit product features, AI tickmarking, external auditor portal, TDS reference (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring: Flexible Pricing — licensing models, Bronze to Platinum platform levels, AI add-on requirement (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring: About — Overland Park headquarters, 2010 founding, co-founders, 250,000 users, 99.8% renewal claim (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring: Security — SOC 2 Type II, CSA STAR Level One, penetration testing, FedRAMP wording (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring press release, 28 August 2024 — platform version 30.0 and Microsoft 365 for the web co-authoring (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Corporate Compliance Insights, 28 October 2025 — independent coverage of the Onspring AI launch and its use of Anthropic’s Claude models (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring press release, 27 July 2026 — Agentic GRC, named agent capabilities, Claude, Ryan Lougheed quote (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring press release, 9 May 2023 — Capital IP strategic investment, founder-owned status, use of funds (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Capital IP Investment Partners release, 15 July 2026 — expanded investment, 2025 follow-on, customer profile claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring press release, 19 January 2023 — FedRAMP In Process designation and the Tennessee Valley Authority sponsorship (accessed 26 September 2026).
- FedRAMP Marketplace: Onspring GovCloud — authorized status, Moderate impact level, 27 March 2024 authorization date, Rev5, agency path (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: Onspring pricing — median $33,808, range $9,972 to $55,810, community notes on discounts and implementation rates (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Onspring reviews — 4.7 from 80 reviews and the pros and cons theme counts (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Onspring — 4.7 from 49 reviews across four markets; 4.5 from 16 in Audit Management Solutions; 4.8 from 31 in Integrated Risk Management (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring case study: University of Virginia — vendor-published account of the audit universe, annual plan tracking, Microsoft 365 co-authoring and report templates (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.
- Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver — the mid-market GRC shortlist, side by side.
- LogicGate Risk Cloud review — the closest rival, reviewed on the same scorecard.
- Resolver review — audit management inside Kroll’s risk platform.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit software — when consolidation across the three lines is worth it.
- Best internal audit software by use case — all 25 platforms and tools ranked.
- Internal audit software pricing — real numbers and negotiation across the market.
- Types of internal audit software — where no-code GRC sits among the categories.
- How to read audit software analyst reports — Gartner, Forrester, G2 and Info-Tech, decoded.
- Selecting an audit management system — the vendor-neutral RFP method.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios, including the AI and tickmarking tests.
- Audit software due diligence — security, residency, AI data use and vendor stability.
- Implementing audit management software — the first 120 days and the move off Excel.
- Audit software for small teams — options and real prices for one to five auditors.
- Optro (AuditBoard) alternatives — where Onspring sits among the options.
- Optro vs Onspring — the two compared factor by factor, with cost and fit by situation.
- TeamMate vs Onspring — the two compared factor by factor, with cost and fit by situation.
Leave a Reply