Optro (formerly AuditBoard) and Workiva are the pairing internal auditors search most, in both directions, and it is not an accident of marketing. On 9 March 2026, at the same IIA General Audit Management conference in Las Vegas, AuditBoard announced it had become Optro and Workiva relaunched its governance, risk and compliance platform around three new solutions, including Audit Management. Both companies are, on the public evidence, genuinely strong on SOX: Optro because SOX is where the company started, in 2014, as SOXHUB; Workiva because its controls module sits next to the SEC filing that is the company’s original business. The question a buyer actually needs answered is narrower than which one is better. It is where your SOX program and your financial reporting already live, and whether your organization would rather pay per auditor or pay for a platform with no seat limit at all.
This comparison covers what each company is and who owns it, where their audit workflows, SOX modules, analytics and AI genuinely differ, a side-by-side scorecard across the same 12 areas used throughout this guide, a fit-by-situation table, a five-year cost illustration built only from public figures, and a clear recommendation by situation. It follows the method in how we review audit software and sits inside the independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software, alongside the full Optro review and Workiva review this page draws on.
Verdict. Optro and Workiva are both legitimately SOX-strong, so the decision usually turns on one fact rather than a feature checklist: does your SOX program, or your SEC filing, already run on Workiva? Choose Optro if internal audit’s own operational workflow is the center of gravity, or if no other Workiva product is already licensed in the building. Choose Workiva if SOX or SEC reporting already runs on the platform, where unlimited seats for auditees and control owners change the economics.
Best for. Optro: mid-size to large audit functions, banks and credit unions, and organizations consolidating audit, risk and compliance onto one third-line-owned platform. Workiva: SOX-heavy public companies and large functions where finance already runs SEC reporting on the system.
Not for. Teams of one to five auditors on a tight budget: Optro’s Vendr floor is about $21,000 a year, and Workiva rarely pays off as a first system unless the platform is already licensed elsewhere in the organization; analytics-heavy teams that need scripted, full-population testing rather than connectors; and most public-sector, higher-education or nonprofit audit shops, where Optro is Workable at best and Workiva is a Poor fit.
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 (range $21,220 to $111,208, 86 purchases). Workiva’s Vendr page, same update, shows a median of $49,420 a year (range $12,736 to $153,365, 164 purchases, across all Workiva products). Neither publishes a list price; quote only.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- Optro and Workiva 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
- Switching between them, or running both
- Our recommendation
- Questions about Optro and Workiva
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
Optro and Workiva in one table
Before the differences, the shared facts. The table below uses the same categories as every review in this guide: owner, category, deployment, audit modules, pricing model, price evidence and ratings, plus the two dated events that put both companies in the news on the same day.
| Attribute | Optro (formerly AuditBoard) | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Hg, a private-equity investor, agreed to buy the company on 23 May 2024 for more than $3 billion | Public company, NYSE: WK; no private-equity owner |
| Category | Audit-native SaaS platform; audit and SOX are two of the 10 modules | GRC and reporting platform; audit is one of roughly six solution families |
| Headquarters | Los Angeles area (press releases were datelined Cerritos, CA until 2024) | 2900 University Boulevard, Ames, Iowa |
| Founded and renamed | 2014 as SOXHUB; AuditBoard from 2017; Optro since 9 March 2026 | 2008 as WebFilings; Workiva since 2012; IPO 2014 |
| Deployment | Cloud SaaS only | Cloud SaaS only |
| Core audit-relevant modules | Internal Audit (OpsAudit) and Controls Management (formerly SOXHUB); Autonomous Testing (Midship) as an add-on | Audit Management and Controls Management (SOX and ICFR); both inside the March 2026 GRC relaunch |
| Pricing model | Per core user and per module; auditee and stakeholder seats free and unlimited | Solution-based; unlimited users on every solution; price set by metrics such as entities, controls and integrations |
| Price evidence (Vendr, Feb 2026) | Median $45,947 a year; range $21,220 to $111,208; 86 purchases | Median $49,420 a year; range $12,736 to $153,365; 164 purchases (whole platform) |
| Public-sector standing | NASPO ValuePoint and OMNIA Partners vehicles via Carahsoft (22 Sep 2026); hosting said to meet FedRAMP Moderate requirements, no authorization confirmed | FedRAMP Moderate listed on the security page; no state contract vehicle found |
| Analyst placements (vendor-claimed) | Leader, Gartner Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders (Oct 2025); Leader, Forrester Wave for GRC Platforms (Q2 2026) | Neither placement claimed; cites a self-commissioned Forrester Consulting study (208 percent ROI claim) |
| Gartner Peer Insights (Audit Management Solutions) | 4.5 from 890 reviews | 4.3 from 597 reviews |
| G2 | 4.6 from about 1,613 reviews | 4.5 from more than 2,130 reviews (platform-wide; 66 mention “internal audit”) |
| Vendor viability | Hg-owned since 2024; more than $300 million ARR (vendor claim); new CEO 1 Jul 2025; two acquisitions since Oct 2025 | Public since 2014; $884.6 million FY2025 revenue; 97 percent gross retention; $815 million cash and securities |
Three things stand out immediately. Optro is the older audit-and-SOX specialist, under private-equity ownership since 2024; Workiva is the larger, public, finance-reporting company adding audit as a newer use case. The headline ratings look close, but Workiva’s G2 number is platform-wide while Optro’s is not, so the audit-specific review signal for Workiva is thinner than 2,130 suggests. And on paper, Workiva’s security page states an actual FedRAMP Moderate listing while Optro’s trust pages only claim to meet the requirement, a distinction worth checking directly on any public-sector deal.
Where they are different
The table above is where the two look similar. What follows is where a demo will show real gaps, organized by the decisions that usually drive a shortlist.
Audit workflow depth versus platform breadth
Optro’s audit module, OpsAudit, has been a purpose-built third-line product since the SOXHUB era: a configurable audit universe, reusable work programs, the Annotate tickmarking feature that Capterra reviewers single out by name, and a platform-wide issue register with Workstream surveys for management self-reporting. It is one of the two modules, alongside Controls Management, the company was originally built around, and the reviews reflect it: 890 on Gartner Peer Insights and roughly 1,613 on G2, nearly all of them about this kind of work.
Workiva’s Audit Management module is the newest of about six solution families on a platform whose core business is SEC reporting, and its own review found the audit-specific documentation thin next to the SOX material: nothing public on capacity modelling, deficiency aggregation or QAIP metrics. Its scorecard rates quality program support Limited against Optro’s Adequate, and only 66 of its more than 2,130 G2 reviews mention “internal audit” at all. Where a function’s job is mostly operational and SOX-adjacent audit work, rather than financial-reporting support, Optro’s decade of purpose-built workflow is the more proven bet.
SOX and controls
This is genuinely the closest call. Optro’s SOX product, Controls Management, is the company’s origin: an out-of-the-box risk and control matrix, certification workflows tied to management’s 302 and 404 attestations, external auditor access, and, since May 2026, the Midship-derived Autonomous Testing agents that the vendor says automate up to 87 percent of SOX program management, a claim to test on your own control population, in the spirit of the caution the SOX 404 guide gives every ICFR program, before you rely on it.
Workiva’s Controls Management module is the most mature part of its own platform, built for the customers who already draft the 10-K there: risk-based scoping, COSO 2013 mapping with coverage tracking, an evidence analyzer, a control creator, and rules-plus-AI testing with exception override. The feature most internal auditors will actually use is the Leveraged SOX Control Testing report inside Audit Management, which lets an operational audit rely on the SOX team’s results rather than retest them, the kind of coordination the Global Internal Audit Standards ask for under Standard 9.5.
The pattern is not that one vendor’s SOX is better. Both are strong because SOX is old business for both. It is that each is strongest when it is already the SOX system of record: adding audit to an existing Controls Management license is the natural move on either platform, and buyers rarely need to displace a working SOX program just to get a better audit module.
Analytics, automation and full-population testing
Neither product is a scripting environment, and reviewers on both sides say so in almost the same words. Optro Analytics is no-code and templated, with more than 150 integrations (Okta, Workday, Snowflake and Oracle are named), but G2’s most common Optro complaint, in 71 reviews, is limited analytics functionality. Workiva’s data tools, Wdata, Chains and Data Prep, sit on a wider general-purpose connector catalog inherited from its finance and close heritage (SAP S/4HANA, Oracle E-Business Suite, NetSuite, Snowflake, BigQuery and BlackLine among them), plus a scripting capability and the new Model Context Protocol gateway, but G2 reviewers still cite missing pivot tables and spreadsheet limits. What either platform runs is closer to continuous monitoring of controls than to full-population analytics; an analytics-heavy team keeps a real scripting tool alongside whichever one it buys.
AI: what’s real, and the data-use terms
Optro’s AI story for audit specifically is the more dated one: AuditBoard AI in April 2024, the Accelerate release’s Audit Agent and Document Intelligence in October 2025, and Autonomous Testing in May 2026. Its published position is that customer data is not used to train its models, that AI features are opt-in, and that actions are logged; the vendor also says 91 percent of its AI customers had accepted generated content into their systems of record by October 2025.
Workiva’s audit-specific agents are newer. Risk and Control Intelligence reached the controls product in 2025; the flowchart visualizer, evidence analyzer and control creator arrived in the Winter 2026 release; the audit report agent and remediation agent are on the 2026 product page; and the automated testing solution for internal audit and GRC was only announced at Amplify 2026, in September, with no general-availability date and gated to “advanced solution tiers.” Its security page states that generative AI is optional, that model providers see only the data in a prompt and do not retain it, and that customer data does not train the models.
| Capability | Optro | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| First audit-relevant AI release | April 2024 (AuditBoard AI) | September 2025 (Workiva AI, Amplify 2025) |
| Sampling and evidence annotation | Audit Agent, Document Intelligence (Oct 2025) | Evidence analyzer (Winter 2026) |
| Drafting | Document Intelligence narratives and status summaries | Audit report agent, remediation agent (2026 product page) |
| Autonomous testing | Autonomous Testing / Midship (May 2026); “up to 87 percent” of SOX program management, a vendor claim | Automated testing for internal audit and GRC (Sep 2026); no GA date, advanced tiers only |
| Custom agents and interoperability | MCP server (Apr 2026) | Agent Studio and MCP gateway (Jul-Sep 2026) |
| Training on customer data | Stated no | Stated no |
| Published adoption evidence | 91 percent of AI customers accepted generated content (vendor claim, Oct 2025) | Not published for the audit module specifically |
Both scorecards below call this area Strong for Optro and Adequate for Workiva, for the same reason: Optro’s audit AI has had two more years to be tested by customers, while Workiva’s newest agents have not shipped in the audit module long enough for reviewers to weigh in. Gartner’s April 2026 market guide told buyers to be “particularly wary of agent-washing” across this whole market; the caution applies to the 87 percent claim and the newest Workiva agents equally, and the guide to evaluating AI in audit software has the test protocol for either one.
Reporting and the auditee experience
Optro generates engagement reports from workpapers with hashtag-style references, offers more than 25 pre-built dashboards with row-level security, and integrates with Power BI; the vendor claims audit committee report preparation time falls by up to 70 percent, a figure worth checking against the site’s own audit committee deck template. Every auditee, control owner and executive who only reads dashboards or answers requests is a free, unlimited stakeholder license, a structural reason reviewers describe a single source of truth.
Workiva’s advantage is the same one that makes its 10-Ks reliable: a workpaper is a Workiva document or spreadsheet, so a number changed in a test updates everywhere it appears, including the final report the audit report agent can draft. Every user, auditors included, is unlimited, so a large auditee population costs nothing extra either way. What reviewers give up for that linking is familiarity: G2 tags missing features in 113 reviews and a learning curve in 85, mostly because everything is custom rather than configured from audit-specific templates the way Optro’s are.
Implementation and ecosystem
The only public implementation documents come from procurement records, and they describe two different delivery models. Optro’s November 2023 bid to the West Virginia Department of Transportation priced implementation at $50,000, with four hours of training included and $250 an hour beyond that, delivered by Optro’s own services team. Workiva’s September 2025 statement of work for the Teachers’ Retirement System of Kentucky priced standard Audit Management onboarding at a $21,000 fixed fee, delivered by an advisory partner, Atikin LLC, over five phases the underlying review estimated at two to four months for a small function with clean data.
Ecosystem breadth cuts the same way as analytics: Workiva’s connector catalog is the wider one, a byproduct of serving finance and the close process, while Optro’s evidence auto-collection from HR and identity systems, such as Workday, ADP and Okta, is more purpose-built for audit and SOX testing specifically. Whichever platform you choose, budget for a named implementation partner and, on Optro’s side in particular, a dedicated administrator; several Gartner Peer Insights reviewers say its self-serve model leaves administrators short.
Head to head: the scorecard
The 12 areas and the vendor-viability line are the ones used across every review in this guide, so the levels below can be read straight across. Neither vendor was used hands-on; the evidence is documentation, procurement records and verified reviews.
| Area | Optro | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Strong — configurable universe, risk scoring, resourcing optimization | Adequate — universe, scores and templates; no public capacity modelling |
| Engagement workflow | Strong — reusable work programs, role-based workflows, document requests | Adequate — documented, but thinner than the SOX material |
| Workpapers and evidence | Strong — Annotate tickmarking, the most-praised feature on Capterra | Strong — linked documents and spreadsheets, a detailed audit trail |
| Issues and follow-up | Strong — platform-wide register, Workstream surveys for updates | Adequate — issues log and remediation agent; validation and aging not described |
| Reporting | Strong — more than 25 dashboards, Power BI integration | Strong — connected reports, report agent; reviewers note formatting limits |
| SOX and controls testing | Strong — SOXHUB heritage, certification workflows, Autonomous Testing | Strong — COSO mapping, evidence analyzer, control creator |
| Analytics and automation | Adequate — no-code, more than 150 integrations, no scripting layer | Adequate — wide connectors, Wdata, MCP gateway; no full-population tests |
| AI features | Strong — dated 2024-2026 feature line; automation claims unverified | Adequate — named, dated features; newest agents are tier-gated and unproven |
| Quality program support | Adequate — enforced through templates; no QAIP module described | Limited — IIA-aligned report templates only; nothing published on QAIP |
| Auditee experience | Strong — unlimited stakeholder licenses, Teams notifications | Adequate — PBC requests and tasks; reviewers praise the request function |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong — SAML, SCIM, SOC 1 and 2, ISO 27001; FedRAMP unconfirmed | Strong — SOC 1 and 2, ISO 27001, FedRAMP Moderate, four hosting regions |
| Cost and contract | Adequate — per core user and per module; Vendr median $45,947 | Adequate — unlimited users, but metric-based; Vendr median $49,420 |
| Vendor viability | Strong — Hg-owned, new CEO in 2025, two acquisitions; PE renewal risk | Strong — public company, 97 percent gross retention, $815 million cash |
Read across, Optro’s board is more evenly Strong. Workiva matches it exactly where its own core business overlaps with audit work, in workpapers, reporting, SOX and security, and falls back to Adequate or Limited exactly where audit is furthest from that core, in planning, issues and quality program support. That pattern, more than any single row, is the scorecard’s real finding.
Fit by situation, side by side
The eight situations are the decision device used on every page in this guide. Both companies’ ratings are unchanged from their individual reviews; the fourth column is the specific fact that breaks the tie for each one.
| Situation | Optro | Workiva | What breaks the tie |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Workable | Poor fit | Workiva only pays off if finance already licenses the platform; Optro’s floor, about $21,000 a year, is still cheaper for a first system |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | Workable | Optro’s audit-native workflow is proven at this size; Workiva works mainly when SOX or filing already runs there |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both scale; the choice is which platform the rest of the enterprise already runs |
| SOX-heavy public company | Strong fit | Strong fit | A genuine tie: pick whichever already holds your SOX program or your 10-K |
| Bank or credit union | Strong fit | Workable | Optro has more bank references and FDICIA support on paper; Workiva’s examiner-facing features need a demonstration |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Workable | Poor fit | Optro’s Carahsoft contract vehicles beat Workiva’s confirmed FedRAMP Moderate listing on affordability for most budgets here |
| Analytics-heavy team | Workable | Workable | Neither replaces a scripting tool; pick by which connectors match your source systems |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | Workable | Optro was rebuilt to sell 10 modules on one model; Workiva’s second-line depth is thinner than dedicated GRC suites |
Two situations are genuine ties: large or global functions, and SOX-heavy public companies. In both, the tie-breaker is not on this table. It is which platform already holds your SOX program or your financial close.
Total cost of ownership over five years
The two pricing models measure different things, and that matters more than the medians being close. Optro charges per core user, meaning an auditor, tester or administrator, and per module, with unlimited free stakeholder seats for everyone who only reads dashboards or answers requests. Workiva charges nothing per seat at all, auditors included, and instead prices by operating metrics such as the number of entities, controls and integrations in the program. A function with many auditors but a modest SOX population can look cheaper on Workiva’s model; a function with few auditors but a sprawling, multi-entity control environment can look cheaper on Optro’s. The illustration below is not a matched quote for the same buyer. It takes the most detailed public document available for each vendor and states plainly what each does and does not capture.
| Optro | Workiva | |
|---|---|---|
| What the scenario represents | AuditBoard’s own November 2023 bid to the West Virginia DOT: 25 core users, unlimited stakeholders, 1,500 audits a year | This guide’s construction: Vendr’s February 2026 median across 164 Workiva deals, whole platform, plus the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System’s 2025 Audit Management onboarding fee |
| Year 1 (subscription plus implementation) | $214,000 ($164,000 plus $50,000) | $70,420 ($49,420 plus $21,000) |
| Years 2 through 5, per year | $164,000 (the bid held pricing flat for five years) | $49,420 (no public escalator found; held flat as a labeled assumption) |
| Five-year total | $990,750 — the vendor’s own figure in the bid, which also folds in a professional-services allowance beyond the simple subscription math shown here | $268,100 — this guide’s arithmetic, not a vendor figure |
| What it does not capture | A different core-user count changes the total roughly in proportion; each additional module is a separate line | The median is platform-wide, not audit-only; a first-time buyer with no other Workiva product should expect entity and control metrics to push the real number higher |
Treat both totals as directional, not as a quote. The Optro figure is the vendor’s own five-year number for a specific, flat-priced public-sector bid; Vendr’s broader data shows renewal escalators of 3 to 7 percent a year elsewhere, so a commercial deal without that flat-pricing requirement may cost more at renewal than this scenario shows. The Workiva figure is this guide’s arithmetic, not the vendor’s, and it mixes a whole-platform median with a small pension fund’s audit-only onboarding fee; a company with no other Workiva product buying its first audit-and-SOX solution should expect the real number to land higher, while a company already licensed for SEC reporting should expect it to land lower, since the marginal cost of adding a module with unlimited seats is usually smaller than adding a whole new platform. Ask both vendors for the metrics their quote is built on, not just the total; the internal audit software pricing guide has the negotiation levers for each model.
Switching between them, or running both
Straight migration between Optro and Workiva is uncommon, because the two are rarely bought to solve the same problem. The far more common pattern is coexistence: a public company files its 10-K and runs SOX controls on Workiva while a separate, purpose-built platform such as Optro runs the broader operational audit plan, or the reverse, with Optro’s Controls Management as the SOX system of record and Workiva reserved for the filing itself. Neither arrangement requires migrating anything. It requires deciding once, and revisiting only when a renewal or a re-platforming project forces the question.
When a real switch is on the table, the exportability evidence is asymmetric. Optro’s November 2023 bid to West Virginia confirms customers can export all data in standard formats, ZIP, PDF and CSV; we found no equivalent public statement for Workiva, whose own review flags an open question worth asking directly: whether workpapers export as documents you can open elsewhere, or only as database extracts tied to the platform. If leaving cleanly matters to you, get that answer in writing before you sign, on either side.
For the more common question, how many audit-adjacent tools to run at once, the GRC suite versus standalone audit management comparison and the SOX compliance software comparison, which places Optro, Workiva, TeamMate, Diligent One and DataSnipper side by side for controls programs specifically, are the next two pages to read. If the real question is whether either platform’s second-line breadth is worth the price, Optro vs Archer and Optro vs ServiceNow IRM cover the enterprise GRC alternative, and LogicGate vs Optro covers the no-code, configure-it-yourself one.
Our recommendation
Start with what already runs where. If SOX or SEC reporting is already on Workiva, add its Audit Management module before shopping elsewhere: the incremental cost is usually smaller than a new platform, the seats are free, and the Leveraged SOX Control Testing report gives you a real coordination benefit from day one. That is a Strong fit for SOX-heavy public companies and for large functions that already carry Workiva elsewhere in the enterprise.
If internal audit’s operational work, not just SOX, is the center of gravity, or if no other Workiva product is already in the building, Optro is the safer default: a decade of audit-native workflow, the deepest review base in the category, and a per-module structure that lets you buy only Internal Audit and Controls Management rather than a 6-solution platform. That is the Strong fit for mid-size and large functions, and for banks and credit unions that want FDICIA support and bank references on paper.
Neither is usually the first purchase for a team of one to five auditors: Optro’s floor is about $21,000 a year, and Workiva seldom makes sense at this size unless the platform is already licensed elsewhere, so the small-team guide and the Optro alternatives and Workiva alternatives pages have cheaper, purpose-built options. Public-sector, higher-education and nonprofit buyers should read Optro’s Workable rating as a real but qualified yes and Workiva’s Poor fit as a real no for most budgets in the category, FedRAMP Moderate notwithstanding. An analytics-heavy team should pick between these two on workflow and reporting fit alone; neither replaces the tool that actually runs your scripted tests, and the types of internal audit software guide sorts those from the platforms compared here.
If you are not sure this category is even what you need, rather than compliance automation for a SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, Optro vs Vanta draws that line directly. And before you sign with either vendor, the 15 mistakes internal audit teams make when buying software guide is worth fifteen minutes.
Questions about Optro and Workiva
Is Optro or Workiva better for SOX?
Both are legitimately strong, for related reasons: Optro’s SOX product began the company in 2014 as SOXHUB, and Workiva’s Controls Management module is the most mature part of a platform built to keep a 10-K consistent. The practical answer is whichever platform already holds your SOX program. Workiva’s Leveraged SOX Control Testing report lets an operational audit rely on those results without retesting them, and Optro’s certification workflows do the equivalent inside its own Controls Management. Treat Optro’s claim of automating up to 87 percent of SOX program management as a figure to test on your own evidence, not a given.
Which is cheaper, Optro or Workiva?
Vendr’s medians are close: $45,947 a year for Optro against $49,420 for Workiva, both updated February 2026. They measure different things, though. Optro’s figure is priced per core user and per module; Workiva’s covers the whole platform with unlimited users, priced by metrics such as entities and controls rather than headcount. A function with many auditors and a modest SOX program will usually find Workiva’s model cheaper; one with few auditors and a large, multi-entity control environment may find Optro’s cheaper. See the cost illustration above and the pricing guide for every vendor’s numbers side by side.
Can we run Optro and Workiva at the same time?
Yes, and it is arguably the more common pattern than switching between them. Many public companies file on Workiva and run SOX controls there while a separate platform handles broader operational audit, or keep SOX and audit together on Optro and use Workiva only for the filing itself. Neither arrangement requires the two systems to talk to each other; each connects to enterprise systems such as ERPs and identity providers, not to one another, so any reconciliation between the two is manual today.
Does Optro publish its own comparison with Workiva?
Yes. Optro’s own site carries a page titled “Optro vs Workiva,” and, as you would expect from a vendor comparing itself with a rival, it favors Optro throughout. We noted that it exists but did not use it as a source for this comparison; every figure above comes from Vendr, public procurement records, the companies’ own regulatory filings and press releases, and verified reviews on Gartner Peer Insights and G2. Read any vendor’s self-published comparison of a competitor the way you would read its sales deck.
Is either platform right for a small audit team?
Rarely, as a first system for one to five auditors. Optro’s lowest Vendr contract is about $21,000 a year and is rated Workable at that size; Workiva is rated a Poor fit, since a small team without Workiva already in finance would pay for a reporting platform to use one module of it. The audit software for small teams guide and the individual Optro and Workiva alternatives pages have cheaper, purpose-built options.
Do Optro and Workiva integrate with each other?
We found no public documentation of a native integration between the two products specifically. Each publishes a broad connector catalog for enterprise systems, identity providers and data warehouses, and Optro’s Model Context Protocol server and Workiva’s MCP gateway both let a customer’s own AI tools query their respective data, but neither vendor describes connecting directly to the other. Organizations that use both today keep them as separate systems of record.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Optro, Workiva 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 vendor’s analyst claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- AuditBoard agrees to be acquired by Hg (Hg, 23 May 2024) — deal value and ownership (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Optro: AI and LLM information page — naming dates, module list and revenue claims (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Optro acquires Midship (PR Newswire, 6 May 2026) — Autonomous Testing and the 87 percent claim (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Optro and Carahsoft partner for the public sector (PR Newswire, 22 September 2026) — the NASPO ValuePoint and OMNIA contract vehicles (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: AuditBoard (Optro) pricing — median, range and purchase count, February 2026 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- AuditBoard bid response to West Virginia DOT, CRFQ 0803 DOT2400000036 (November 2023) — subscription, unit prices, implementation and export terms (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Audit Management Solutions market — both vendors’ ratings and review distribution (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Optro (formerly AuditBoard) reviews — the rating, review count and tagged pros and cons (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Workiva press release, 9 March 2026: GRC relaunch at IIA GAM — the relaunch date and the three GRC modules (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Workiva Inc. Form 10-K for the year ended 31 December 2025 — headquarters, financials, customer counts and the licensing model (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Workiva second-quarter 2026 results, 4 August 2026 — customers, retention and cash (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Teachers’ Retirement System of Kentucky: statement of work for Workiva Audit Management onboarding, 19 September 2025 — onboarding scope, fee and phases (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: Workiva pricing data — median, range and purchase count, February 2026 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Workiva reviews — the rating, tagged pros and cons and the internal-audit filter (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Workiva security page — certifications, FedRAMP status and AI data-use statements (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer summary of Gartner’s Market Guide for Audit Management Software (13 April 2026 report) — the agent-washing warning (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 this comparison draws on.
- Workiva review for internal audit and SOX — the full review of the other side.
- Optro (AuditBoard) alternatives — 10 options by team size and budget.
- Workiva alternatives for internal audit and SOX — the shortlist for teams outside its ecosystem.
- Optro vs TeamMate — the audit-native successor against the audit classic.
- Optro vs Diligent One — GRC breadth against analytics heritage.
- TeamMate vs Workiva — the other audit-first platform against the same reporting suite.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit management software — how to make the platform call generally.
- Internal audit software vs compliance automation — why Vanta and Drata are not on this shortlist.
- Internal audit software pricing — every vendor’s real numbers and how to negotiate.
- Types of internal audit software — audit management, GRC, SOX, compliance and analytics explained.
- Best internal audit software — 25 platforms and tools compared by use case.
- Selecting an audit management system — the vendor-neutral RFP method.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios that make vendors show, not tell.
Leave a Reply