Type “optro vs teammate” into a search box today and almost everything that comes back still says “auditboard vs teammate”. That gap is real: AuditBoard became Optro on 9 March 2026, and plenty of the audit teams weighing these two platforms have not caught up with the new name, let alone worked out how the product underneath it compares with TeamMate, which Wolters Kluwer has sold to audit shops for more than 30 years. The two are not close substitutes in the way the search traffic implies. Optro (formerly AuditBoard) is a cloud-only, modular suite that treats internal audit as one of ten products on a shared platform built for risk, compliance and audit together; TeamMate is an audit-first system, sold as three separate products, that still ships with an on-premise option and decades of use inside government and financial-services audit shops.
This comparison covers what each platform is built to do, where their SOX, analytics and AI features genuinely differ, what the public procurement record says each one costs, and which of the eight situations in how we review audit software favors which system. It is one of the comparisons in the site’s independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software, and it draws on the full Optro review and TeamMate review for anyone who wants one product covered in depth rather than the two set side by side.
Verdict. Optro is the safer default for a mid-size or larger function that also runs SOX, wants agentic AI features and might consolidate risk, compliance and audit onto one platform; TeamMate is the safer default for a public-sector body, a bank or any function that wants audit depth without a GRC suite’s overhead, an on-premise or offline option, and a tier that a two-person team can actually afford. Neither is cheap once modules and implementation are added, and neither vendor’s own website is unambiguous about FedRAMP.
Choose Optro if. SOX and operational audit need to share one control library and certification calendar; the function has six or more auditors and a budget above roughly $40,000 a year; or risk, compliance and information security are already asking to consolidate onto one platform.
Choose TeamMate if. the function needs on-premise or offline deployment; it is a government, higher-education or bank buyer that values FedRAMP or GovRAMP and a workpaper archive examiners already recognize; it has one to five auditors and TeamMate Analytics in Excel covers the data-testing need; or it simply does not want to pay for eight modules it will never open.
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. Vendr’s buyer data, updated February 2026, puts Optro’s median contract at $45,947 a year. The City of Norman, Oklahoma’s quote of 28 February 2025 puts TeamMate+ Audit Essentials at $6,150.88 a year for two users, and the New York State Comptroller pays $988,160 over five years for support and maintenance. Neither vendor publishes a list price.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- Optro and TeamMate 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
- Moving between them
- Our recommendation
- Questions about Optro and TeamMate
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
Optro and TeamMate in one table
The two products sit at opposite ends of how audit software gets built. The table below draws on each vendor’s own documentation, the site’s Optro review and TeamMate review, and the public procurement record; the ratings and price evidence match what each review already carries.
| Attribute | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) | TeamMate (Wolters Kluwer) |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Hg, a private equity firm (agreed 23 May 2024, more than $3 billion) | Wolters Kluwer, a public company listed on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL) |
| Category | Modular SaaS suite for audit, SOX, risk, compliance and IT and third-party risk | Audit-first platform, with SOX and GRC sold as separate products on the same base |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS) only | TeamCloud (Microsoft Azure), on-premise, or offline per the vendor’s documentation |
| Audit and SOX modules | Internal Audit (OpsAudit) and Controls Management (SOX) share one platform with seven more modules | TeamMate Audit, TeamMate Controls and TeamMate Risk & Compliance are three separately priced products |
| Named AI features | Optro AI, the Accelerate agents (Audit Agent, Document Intelligence) and Autonomous Testing (from the Midship acquisition) | TeamMate+ AI Editor, a writing assistant, plus GRC AI inside Risk & Compliance |
| Pricing model | Per core user and per module; stakeholder and auditee users are free and unlimited | Per named user by edition; hosting and TeamMate Analytics can be bundled into the price |
| Price evidence | Vendr median $45,947 a year (updated February 2026); a November 2023 bid to the West Virginia DOT priced 25 core users at $164,000 a year | City of Norman, Oklahoma quoted $6,150.88 a year for two users (28 February 2025); New York’s Comptroller pays $988,160 over five years for support and maintenance |
| User ratings | Gartner Peer Insights 4.5 from 890 reviews; G2 4.6 from about 1,613 | Gartner Peer Insights 4.2 from 120 reviews; G2 4.3 from 597 |
| Vendor viability | Private equity owned since 2024; new CEO in 2025; two acquisitions in the following 12 months | Public company, €6.1 billion 2025 revenue; TeamMate is one line inside a much larger group |
Three differences set the tone for everything that follows. Optro is owned by a private equity firm that bought it for growth and will look for a return at exit or at renewal; TeamMate sits inside a public, diversified information-services group with no comparable exit clock. Optro sells modules on one platform; TeamMate sells products, and Controls is priced separately from Audit even though the two share a base. And Optro’s cheapest verified deal in Vendr’s data is already several times TeamMate’s cheapest itemized quote, which is less a statement about audit depth than about who each vendor is currently trying to sign.
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.
Audit workflow depth against GRC breadth
Optro’s audit module, OpsAudit, is one of ten products built to interlock: a finding from an operational audit, a SOX deficiency and a compliance gap can live in the same issue register, and the same stakeholder licenses and dashboards serve every module. That is a genuine advantage for a function whose risk, compliance and audit teams already want one system, which is why the fit for consolidating GRC across the three lines is Strong for Optro. It is also why a buyer who wants only audit software ends up paying for platform features, such as the frameworks library and the MCP server, that a pure audit shop may never open.
TeamMate takes the opposite bet. TeamMate Audit is built around the engagement first: scheduling, time and expense, and a paperless workpaper archive sit in the same product as the annual risk assessment and plan, and 30 years of engagement templates and TeamStore content show it. Controls and Risk & Compliance exist, but a buyer opts into them as separate products rather than getting them baked into the audit workflow. A function that wants audit depth without becoming the reason the second line buys a platform will feel more at home here; one that wants a single system spanning all three lines will find Optro’s design closer to what it is asking for. The site’s GRC suite versus standalone audit management software comparison works through that trade-off in general terms, and Optro vs Archer, Optro vs ServiceNow IRM and LogicGate vs Optro size it against three specific rivals.
SOX and controls
Optro’s SOX heritage is the older company under the new name: SOXHUB, the product Optro grew from between 2014 and 2017, is now Controls Management, and it ships with an out-of-the-box SOX risk and control matrix, certification workflows that tie 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% of SOX program management, a vendor claim worth testing on your own control population before you rely on it. TeamMate Controls covers the same ground with control documentation, testing cycles, self-assessment and ICFR, ICSR and ICC certifications, but it is a smaller, separately sold product with a shorter SOX customer list than Optro’s or Workiva’s. That gap is why the scorecard below rates SOX and controls testing Strong for Optro and Adequate for TeamMate, and why a SOX-heavy public company gets a Strong fit from Optro against Workable from TeamMate.
Analytics
TeamMate’s advantage is that TeamMate Analytics, an Excel add-in the vendor describes as 150-plus tools with more than 180 documented tests, was bundled into the smallest quote we have found, so a two-person team gets full-population testing in Excel with no extra line on the invoice. Optro Analytics is a no-code, drag-and-drop layer with templates for common tests and more than 150 data connections, but it has no scripting language, and limited analytics and customization are the most repeated complaints in Optro’s own G2 reviews. Neither tool replaces Caseware IDEA, Arbutus or Python for a team doing scripted, full-population work; the difference is that TeamMate hands a small team a real analytics tool at no extra cost, while Optro’s strength is connecting to source systems rather than manipulating the data once it arrives. The site’s audit analytics software guide and the TeamMate Analytics review cover both tools in depth.
AI: ambition against restraint
Optro’s AI has three dated layers: AuditBoard AI (24 April 2024) for drafting and mapping; Accelerate (22 October 2025) for risk-based sample selection and document intelligence; and a 2026 agentic layer, Autonomous Testing and the MCP server, in which agents run tests and a customer’s own model can query live Optro data. TeamMate’s AI is one feature: the AI Editor, launched 2 June 2025, a writing assistant with published safeguards (data isolation, no data retention, a PII blocker) that drafts, adjusts tone, summarizes and translates inside a workpaper an auditor accepts or rejects. Both vendors say customer data does not train their models. The honest way to frame the difference is ambition against restraint: Optro is building toward autonomous testing and already reports the kind of adoption statistic that comes with that ambition (91% of its AI customers had accepted generated content into their systems of record as of October 2025); TeamMate has shipped one checkable feature and left agent-building to others. Gartner’s own April 2026 market guide told buyers to be wary of agent-washing, a line Wolters Kluwer chose to publish on its own site, which says something about which vendor is more worried about the question. The site’s guide to evaluating AI in audit software and the auditor’s prompt library set out the test either vendor’s claims should pass before a function relies on them.
Deployment, security and public sector
Optro is cloud-only; its trust pages say hosting meets FedRAMP’s Moderate impact requirements, which is not the same claim as an authorization, and we found no authorization statement on the pages we read, nor a non-US hosting option (the West Virginia bid places production in AWS’s Oregon region with failover in Virginia). TeamMate offers TeamCloud, on-premise installation, and, per its documentation, offline working in the field; the FedRAMP Marketplace lists TeamMate Audit and TeamMate Controls as authorized at the Moderate level, agency path, since 13 May 2022, and Wolters Kluwer’s public-sector page calls the product FedRAMP and GovRAMP authorized, even though the TeamMate Audit product page separately still describes FedRAMP as upcoming. Both vendors’ own sites disagree with themselves in different ways, so a federal, state or local buyer should ask each one for the authorization letter directly rather than trusting either marketing page.
| Attribute | Optro | TeamMate |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment options | Cloud (SaaS) only | TeamCloud SaaS, on-premise, or offline per the vendor’s documentation |
| FedRAMP status | Trust pages say hosting meets FedRAMP’s Moderate impact requirements; no authorization statement found | FedRAMP Marketplace lists Audit and Controls as Moderate, agency-authorized since 13 May 2022; the TeamMate Audit product page separately still says FedRAMP is upcoming |
| Other certifications | SOC 1, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA, TX-RAMP, HECVAT, CSA STAR | ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, TISAX, HIPAA, CSA STAR, GDPR and CCPA adherence |
| Public-sector contract vehicles | Carahsoft: NASPO ValuePoint and OMNIA Partners (added 22 September 2026) | GSA Multiple Award Schedule 47QSWA18D008F, running to 21 August 2028 |
| SSO and integration | SAML 2.0, SCIM, REST API, 150-plus connectors | SSO, an Integration Hub (vendor claims 1,000-plus third-party applications), plus Reporting, Data Exchange, Event Monitoring and Identity Provider APIs |
Where Optro leans on Carahsoft’s contract vehicles, added in September 2026, to reach state and local buyers, TeamMate already has a procurement record stretching back years with exactly those buyers: the city, county and state renewals in the pricing section below are all sole-source or single-tender, on a system the auditors already know. The site’s banks and credit unions guide and audit software due diligence guide have the questions to put to either vendor before signing.
Cost and contract structure
The per-user math tells the real story. TeamMate’s Norman quote works out to $3,075.44 per user a year, including analytics and hosting; Optro’s West Virginia bid works out to about $6,560 per core user for the first 25, before volume pricing. That gap narrows once modules are added on the Optro side and once implementation is added on the TeamMate side: Norman’s implementation fee, even after a $6,000 discount, cost more than two and a half years of subscription. Vendr’s guidance points to renewal escalators of 3% to 7% a year on Optro contracts and implementation fees of 20% to 50% of the first year’s subscription on Wolters Kluwer contracts generally; G2’s reviewer-reported average discount on TeamMate is 8%. Whichever product wins the shortlist, the clause that matters most is the one that caps the escalator and fixes the price of modules you expect to add later, not the number on the first invoice. The site’s internal audit software pricing guide sets both against the rest of the market.
What users say, head to head
G2 runs its own side-by-side comparison of the two products, scoring specific attributes out of ten from its reviewers’ answers rather than a simple star average. On that page, Optro scores 8.8 for ease of use against TeamMate’s 8.2, 8.6 for quality of support against 8.3, and the two tie at 8.1 for ease of setup. The star ratings tell a similar story at a coarser grain: Optro holds 4.6 on G2 from about 1,613 reviews and 4.5 on Gartner Peer Insights from 890; TeamMate holds 4.3 on G2 from 597 and 4.2 on Gartner Peer Insights from 120. Optro simply has far more verified reviews behind its score, which is itself informative: it has been selling to a larger, more varied customer base for longer at its current scale.
| Metric | Optro | TeamMate |
|---|---|---|
| G2 comparison score: ease of use (out of 10) | 8.8 | 8.2 |
| G2 comparison score: quality of support (out of 10) | 8.6 | 8.3 |
| G2 comparison score: ease of setup (out of 10) | 8.1 | 8.1 (tie) |
| Star rating and review count | G2 4.6 (about 1,613); Gartner Peer Insights 4.5 (890) | G2 4.3 (597); Gartner Peer Insights 4.2 (120) |
| Most-cited praise | Ease of use; a single source of truth across modules | Ease of use; configurability to the function’s own methodology |
| Most-cited complaint | Limited analytics and customization | Inadequate reporting; a learning curve and too many clicks |
Head to head: the scorecard
The 12 areas and four levels are the ones defined in how we review audit software; the ratings match those already published in each product’s own review, so a level here will not contradict the one you find if you read either page on its own.
| Area | Optro | TeamMate | What decides it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Strong | Strong | Both have a configurable audit universe and risk-scored planning; TeamMate added multi-year planning in December 2024 |
| Engagement workflow | Strong | Strong | Optro’s workflow spans the platform; TeamMate’s is 30 years of audit-specific templates, though reviewers say it takes more clicks |
| Workpapers and evidence | Strong | Strong | Optro’s Annotate tickmarking and TeamMate’s Document Linker are each product’s most-praised feature |
| Issues and follow-up | Strong | Adequate | Optro’s issue register spans every module; TeamMate reviewers report no batch edit or sign-off and one assignee per request |
| Reporting | Strong | Adequate | Optro ships 25-plus dashboards and a Power BI link; inadequate reporting is TeamMate’s top G2 complaint |
| SOX and controls testing | Strong | Adequate | Optro’s SOXHUB heritage and Autonomous Testing outweigh TeamMate Controls, a smaller, separately sold product |
| Analytics and automation | Adequate | Strong | TeamMate Analytics is a real Excel tool bundled at the low end; Optro Analytics has no scripting layer |
| AI features | Strong | Adequate | Optro has a multi-feature roadmap toward agents; TeamMate has shipped one checkable writing assistant |
| Quality program support | Adequate | Strong | TeamMate’s Business Rules Engine and methodology content edge out Optro’s template-only enforcement |
| Auditee experience | Strong | Adequate | Unlimited free stakeholder licenses favor Optro; TeamMate auditees report limited sorting and one assignee per request |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong | Strong | TeamMate’s FedRAMP Marketplace listing shows an actual Moderate authorization; Optro states requirements met, not authorized |
| Cost and contract | Adequate | Adequate | Optro has no published price and Vendr-only medians; TeamMate’s only itemized quote shows implementation costing more than two years of subscription |
| Vendor viability | Strong | Strong | Private equity discipline behind Optro; a small line inside a very large, stable group behind TeamMate |
Read the two “Adequate” rows for each product as the honest asymmetry in this comparison: Optro trails on analytics and quality program support, and TeamMate trails on issues, reporting, SOX and auditee experience. Neither weakness is disqualifying; both are worth testing directly in a demo before signing. 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, and the ratings below are the same ones each product’s own review carries.
| Situation | Optro | TeamMate | Why the difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Workable | Strong fit | TeamMate’s cheapest verified deal, $6,150.88 a year for two users, undercuts Vendr’s Optro floor of $21,220 by more than three times |
| 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 on capability |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Optro’s vendor-claimed Fortune 500 customer base and TeamMate’s vendor-claimed footprint across 150 countries both hold up at scale |
| SOX-heavy public company | Strong fit | Workable | Optro’s SOXHUB heritage and Autonomous Testing target this buyer directly; TeamMate Controls is adequate but secondary to Optro and Workiva here |
| Bank or credit union | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both carry financial-services references and SOC 2 reports; TeamMate adds an on-premise option some examiners still prefer |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Workable | Strong fit | TeamMate’s FedRAMP Marketplace authorization, GSA Schedule and long sole-source record beat Optro’s requirements-only FedRAMP statement and newer contract vehicles |
| Analytics-heavy team | Workable | Strong fit | TeamMate Analytics is bundled and capable in Excel; Optro Analytics is no-code only and draws the most complaints of any scorecard area |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | Workable | Optro’s ten modules were built for this; TeamMate Risk & Compliance is still integrating the StandardFusion acquisition |
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 take each vendor’s own verified numbers and hold them flat across five years; they do not add the renewal escalators or subtract the negotiated discounts described above, and the two rows are not the same deal size, because that is what the public record actually contains. The gap in scale between the rows is itself a finding: the cheapest verified evidence for Optro describes a materially larger deployment than the cheapest verified evidence for TeamMate.
| Scenario and source | Optro | TeamMate |
|---|---|---|
| Smallest verified deal, held flat for five years | Vendr’s published floor, $21,220 a year, times five years equals $106,100 (module and user mix not stated) | City of Norman quote: $6,150.88 a year times five years equals $30,754.40, plus a one-time $15,630 implementation fee, for $46,384.40 in total |
| Typical verified deal (median), held flat for five years | Vendr’s median, $45,947 a year, times five years equals $229,735 | No median figure is public; Vendr has no TeamMate page, and its Wolters Kluwer page pools TeamMate with unrelated tax and research products, so we do not use it — |
| Itemized 25-core-user deal, the vendor’s own five-year total | West Virginia DOT bid: $990,750 over five years for 25 core users, including implementation and service allowances (AuditBoard’s own published total) | No public TeamMate quote exists at this scale; extrapolating Norman’s per-user rate to 25 users would be our own estimate, not a quote, so we do not publish one — |
Two things follow. First, every Optro row above excludes the 3% to 7% annual escalator Vendr says is common at renewal, so a real five-year Optro contract held that long would likely run higher than the flat math shows. Second, TeamMate simply has no public price evidence above two users; a function of any real size should treat the Norman quote as a floor, not a guide, and get a written quote before assuming TeamMate stays this cheap at scale. The site’s internal audit software pricing guide has the same method applied to every other product in this section.
Moving between them
No public case study describes a customer moving directly between Optro and TeamMate, in either direction, so treat what follows as general guidance rather than a documented path. What normally carries over cleanly to a new system is structural: the audit universe, the current-year plan, the risk and control matrix, and open issues. What does not carry over automatically is the workpaper archive itself, because each vendor’s file format, sign-off history and audit trail are built for its own product; the Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s move off the legacy TeamMate AM to Caseware, made for a different reason (a privacy impact assessment on how personal information was handled), is the one documented migration involving either vendor’s older product, and it went to a third system, not to the other one compared here. Before signing a contract with either vendor, get the export format in writing: Optro’s West Virginia bid confirms exports in ZIP, PDF and CSV; TeamMate’s export format is not described on the pages we read, so ask for it directly. 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 brand you have heard of most. A SOX-heavy public company, or a function whose risk and compliance teams are already asking for one shared platform, should shortlist Optro first and use TeamMate as the audit-first alternative to test Optro’s price against. A public-sector body, a bank that wants an on-premise option, or a team of one to five auditors on a real budget should shortlist TeamMate first and use Optro as the platform-consolidation alternative to weigh against a narrower, cheaper system.
Two situations settle the question outright. If audit is being asked to justify a platform that risk, compliance and information security will also use, Optro’s ten-module design is simply built for that in a way TeamMate is not. If the requirement includes on-premise or offline deployment, TeamMate is the only one of the two that offers it at all. Everywhere else, run both through the site’s demo script and vendor-neutral RFP method before deciding on price alone, and read the 15 buying mistakes guide before either vendor’s sales team sets the agenda for your evaluation. If neither is the right shape, the best internal audit software roundup covers the rest of the field, and Optro vs Vanta is worth a look if what you actually need is SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification support rather than an audit platform at all.
Questions about Optro and TeamMate
Why do search results still say “AuditBoard vs TeamMate”?
AuditBoard renamed itself Optro on 9 March 2026, and search demand has not caught up: far more people still type “AuditBoard vs TeamMate” than “Optro vs TeamMate”. The product, the contracts and the ownership did not change with the name; only the name did. The site’s AuditBoard is now Optro explainer covers what existing customers should check.
Which is cheaper, Optro or TeamMate?
TeamMate, at the small end: the City of Norman, Oklahoma paid $6,150.88 a year for two Essentials users, against a $21,220 floor in Optro’s Vendr data. At scale the comparison is harder to make, because TeamMate has no public quote above two users; Optro’s only itemized large quote, the West Virginia DOT bid, comes to $990,750 over five years for 25 core users. Implementation narrows the gap either way: Norman’s fee alone cost more than two and a half years of its TeamMate subscription.
Can TeamMate do what Optro does for SOX?
It can run a controls program, but it is a smaller, separately priced product with a shorter track record on SOX than Optro or Workiva. TeamMate Controls handles control documentation, testing cycles, self-assessment and ICFR certifications; it has no equivalent to Optro’s Autonomous Testing agents or Optro’s scale of SOX-specific customer references. A SOX-first public company should treat Optro and Workiva as the primary shortlist and TeamMate as a secondary option.
Does either vendor use our data to train its AI?
Both say no. Optro’s AI page states that customer data is not used to train its models, that the AI features are opt-in, and that actions are logged; the models are in-house machine learning plus Microsoft’s Azure OpenAI service. Wolters Kluwer’s TeamMate+ AI Editor release lists data isolation, no data retention and end-to-end encryption, and its Expert AI page says submitted content is discarded once suggestions are generated. Get both statements into the contract or data processing agreement rather than relying on the marketing page.
Is either one FedRAMP authorized?
TeamMate has the clearer public record: the FedRAMP Marketplace lists TeamMate Audit and TeamMate Controls as authorized at the Moderate impact level, agency path, since 13 May 2022, though the TeamMate Audit product page still describes FedRAMP as upcoming, so confirm which is current for your deal. Optro’s trust pages say its hosting meets FedRAMP’s Moderate impact requirements, which is not the same claim as an authorization, and we found no authorization statement on the pages we read. Federal buyers should ask both vendors for the authorization package directly.
Which is better for a small audit team?
On price, TeamMate: its Essentials edition, with analytics and hosting included, was quoted at $6,150.88 a year for two users, and the vendor says almost half its customers are small teams. Optro works for small teams too, but Vendr’s cheapest verified deal is more than three times that figure, and reviewers at smaller organizations report needing more adaptation to fit Optro’s templates. The site’s audit software for small teams guide sets both against Onspring and the rest of the field.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Optro, TeamMate, Wolters Kluwer 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
- 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, and 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) pricing — median, range, purchase count 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 the five-year total (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Audit Management Solutions market — the ratings and distributions for both products (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Optro (formerly AuditBoard) reviews — the 4.6 rating and counted pros and cons (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: compare AuditBoard vs TeamMate — the head-to-head ease of use, support and setup scores (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: TeamMate Audit product page — features, deployment options, and FedRAMP described as upcoming (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: acquisition of StandardFusion (9 January 2026) — price, headcount and the TeamMate Risk & Compliance rename (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: launch of TeamMate+ AI Editor (2 June 2025) — the feature and its data-protection safeguards (accessed 26 September 2026).
- FedRAMP Marketplace: TeamMate FedRAMP (FR2207643307) — the Moderate, agency authorization dated 13 May 2022 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- City of Norman, Oklahoma: council agenda attachment with the TeamMate+ quote (28 February 2025) — the itemized small-team price (accessed 26 September 2026).
- New York State Office of the State Comptroller: single/sole source notice, contract C001165 — the five-year support and maintenance figure (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.
- Optro (formerly AuditBoard) review — the full review: modules, AI, pricing and user themes.
- TeamMate review — the full review: editions, pricing and what reviewers say.
- Optro (AuditBoard) alternatives — ten options by team size and budget if Optro is not the fit.
- TeamMate alternatives — what to weigh before migrating off TeamMate.
- Optro vs Workiva — the comparison more buyers search for than this one.
- Optro vs Diligent One — GRC breadth against Diligent’s ACL analytics heritage.
- TeamMate vs Diligent One — two audit veterans, two different bets.
- TeamMate vs Workiva — audit-first platform against the SOX and reporting suite.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit management software — the consolidation decision behind Optro’s ten-module design.
- Internal audit software vs compliance automation — why Vanta and Drata are not on this shortlist at all.
- Internal audit software pricing — every price in this comparison, set beside the rest of the market.
- Types of internal audit software — where audit management, GRC and compliance automation actually differ.
- 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.
Leave a Reply