Resolver, a Kroll Business, is a configurable risk, compliance and security platform that happens to include an internal audit module, not an audit-first product that grew into other things. Kroll bought the Toronto company on 30 March 2022, and most of what Resolver has shipped publicly since then, from Playbook Automation to AI-powered incident intake, has gone into incident response and risk-event management rather than audit. The one thing to know before shortlisting Resolver for internal audit: it earns its place when the rest of the organization already runs Resolver for risk, security or incidents and wants audit on the same records, not when audit is the only reason you are buying, because the audit module’s public documentation is thinner than its mid-market rivals and reporting is the most consistent complaint reviewers raise.
This review covers what Resolver is and who owns it, how the internal audit module sits inside a roughly 19-page GRC catalog, a walkthrough by audit stage, the separate SOX module, analytics and integrations, the AI features Resolver has actually named, our 12-area scorecard, fit by situation, price evidence, what verified reviewers say, implementation, and how Resolver compares with Onspring, LogicGate and the audit-native platforms. 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 among the mid-market no-code platforms, the Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver comparison puts the three side by side.
Verdict
Resolver makes sense for internal audit when the organization already runs it for enterprise risk, incidents or investigations and wants the audit module on the same records, particularly for a mid-size function consolidating GRC across the three lines. Bought for audit alone, it asks more configuration and reporting workaround than the audit-native and dedicated-audit platforms in this guide, and its own product investment since the Kroll acquisition has visibly favored incident and security work over audit.
Best for. Mid-size functions of six to 25 auditors; organizations consolidating enterprise risk, compliance, security and audit on Resolver already; audit teams whose work leans on incident and investigations data.
Not for. SOX-centric public companies that want an audit-native SOX workflow; analytics-heavy teams that need scripted full-population testing; buyers who need strong native reporting without exporting to Power BI.
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 average Resolver contract at $32,471 a year from a small number of deals, which Vendr itself flags as low-confidence, alongside a higher proposed reference price of $64,943. Resolver publishes no tiers or list prices; cost is a custom quote.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- What Resolver 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 Resolver
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
What Resolver is, and who owns it
The brand is “Resolver, a Kroll Business”; the legal entity is Resolver Inc., headquartered at 111 Peter St in Toronto. Kroll acquired Resolver on 30 March 2022, with no financial terms disclosed, only weeks after finishing its own rebrand from Duff and Phelps to Kroll, so Resolver has operated under the single Kroll name for its entire life as an acquired company.
Kroll traces to Duff and Phelps and the original Kroll investigations firm; a group led by Stone Point Capital and Further Global bought Duff and Phelps at a $4.2 billion valuation in January 2020, and the combined firm took the Kroll name in February 2022.
Before Kroll, Resolver had its own combination: Klass Capital had acquired PPM 2000 Inc., maker of the Perspective incident-management product, and Resolver Inc., the GRC suite, as separate companies, combining their operations on 1 January 2016, when the merged company served more than 1,000 customers in more than 100 countries, Perspective alone used by more than 700 large organizations. Resolver’s current marketing still repeats “1,000-plus organizations” and a claim of safeguarding $6.5 trillion in market capitalization, worded identically across its about-us, GRC-platform and 2026 press pages, a maintained brand statistic rather than a freshly checked number.
Leadership is not entirely clear from the public record. A June 2026 release names Kam Rawal as Resolver’s president; the about-us page separately names Emma Andrews as chief operating officer and Kevin Fletcher as chief data officer. Will Anderson held the chief executive title at both the 2016 PPM 2000 combination and the 2022 Kroll acquisition, and no source in this research names a current chief executive distinct from Rawal’s president title. None of this is disqualifying, but a buyer who cares about leadership continuity should ask Resolver directly rather than lean on its own press pages.
Resolver has not claimed a seat in Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders (27 October 2025) or the Forrester Wave: GRC Platforms (Q2 2026), the two placements that Optro (formerly AuditBoard), LogicGate, Archer, IBM and Diligent each claim in one or the other, per the site’s guide to reading audit software analyst reports. Its analyst credential instead is a June 2026 placement as a Leader in QKS Group’s SPARK Matrix for GRC Platforms and, separately, for IT Risk Management, a smaller and less scrutinized research firm than Gartner or Forrester in this market. The timeline below draws together the ownership history and the 2024-2026 releases this research could confirm.
| Date | Event | Why it matters to an audit buyer |
|---|---|---|
| 1 January 2016 | PPM 2000 and Resolver Inc. combine operations under Klass Capital | The incident-management heritage that still shapes where the platform’s newest features land |
| 30 March 2022 | Kroll acquires Resolver, weeks after completing its own Duff and Phelps to Kroll rebrand; terms undisclosed | Current ownership; a large risk-advisory parent, not a GRC-focused one |
| 12 February 2025 | Playbook Automation launches for incident response | First of three 2025 releases aimed at incidents and security, not audit |
| 25 June 2025 | AI-powered incident intake and triage launches, billed as industry-first | Likely corresponds to the “Intake Agent” named on Resolver’s AI legal page, though the link is inferred, not stated |
| 6 August 2025 | Risk Event Management software launches | Another risk and incident-side release |
| 15-17 June 2026 | Named a Leader in QKS Group’s SPARK Matrix for GRC Platforms and, separately, for IT Risk Management | A QKS Group placement, not a Gartner Magic Quadrant or Forrester Wave seat |
Every dated release this research could confirm for 2025 and 2026 sits on the incident, security or risk side of the platform, with no internal-audit-specific launch in that window, worth weighing against how the module itself has evolved, covered next.
What you get: modules and how audit fits
Resolver sells one configurable platform rather than named editions or tiers. Its own marketing organizes roughly 19 solution pages into four groups, mapped in the table below: Risk and Audit, Compliance, Security and Investigations, and Risk Intelligence feeds. Internal Audit is one of seven pages in the first group, sitting next to, not underneath, Internal Controls, the separate module that carries SOX.
No page on resolver.com calls the platform “no-code”; the vendor’s own pricing copy talks about configuring workflows to match your processes, and it is G2 reviewers, not Resolver, who reach for “no-code” and “low-code” to describe the same configuration layer. Treat “no-code” as a reviewer’s shorthand rather than a category Resolver claims for itself, and see the site’s guide to the types of internal audit software for how that configuration model differs from an audit-native product such as Optro or an enterprise GRC suite such as Archer.
The Internal Audit Management module itself covers an audit universe of processes, risks, controls and tests; risk-based planning; fieldwork and testing with budgeted-versus-actual hour tracking; findings, issues and corrective actions; automated reminders and alerts; and reporting aimed at the audit committee. A separate client engagement portal gives first-line stakeholders a scoped, read-only way in to submit documents and review narratives, one of the module’s more concretely documented features. The audit universe language matches what the site’s risk and control matrix template guide expects a matrix to hold; the site’s GRC framework guide covers the wider structure it sits inside.
| Solution group | What sits in it, per Resolver’s own pages | Where internal audit touches it |
|---|---|---|
| Risk and Audit | Enterprise Risk, Internal Audit, Internal Controls, Third-Party Risk, Business Continuity, IT Risk, Risk Event Management | The audit module itself, the separate Internal Controls (SOX) module, and third-party and continuity risk data an audit plan can draw on |
| Compliance | Regulatory Compliance, IT Compliance, Ethics and Compliance | Obligations an audit universe maps against; compliance testing an audit function may rely on rather than repeat |
| Security and Investigations | Incident Management, Enterprise Investigations, Security Risk Management, Threat Protection | Where most of Resolver’s named 2025-2026 releases landed; incident data an operational or IT audit can draw on |
| Risk Intelligence | Curated external risk feeds | Context for risk-based planning, not audit content in itself |
There are no published tiers to compare: Resolver’s pricing page frames cost as a function of solutions licensed, configuration needed and active users, all by custom quote. That makes the case for internal audit on Resolver inseparable from what else the organization runs on it: the site’s GRC suite versus standalone audit software comparison works through when that consolidation earns its cost, and the pricing section below has what public data exists.
Walkthrough by audit stage
What follows comes from Resolver’s public module pages and case studies; the help-center articles that would show actual screens sit behind a customer login this research could not pass, so several stage-level mechanics below are marked unconfirmed. We have not operated the software; the site’s audit software due diligence guide has the questions to ask before you sign anything.
Planning and risk assessment
Resolver’s own description of planning is short: risk-based planning that uses the most recent risk and audit data from across the enterprise to prioritize entities by risk score. That is consistent with the platform’s shared-database design, where a risk register built for the second line can feed the audit universe directly, an advantage the site’s building the audit universe guide describes as worth designing for even outside Resolver. What the public page does not show is how granular the scoring gets, whether a rolling multi-year plan is a first-class object, or how resourcing and skills-based assignment work; help-article titles surfaced in search redirected to the help-center homepage rather than the article itself, so the screen-level mechanics are unconfirmed. Ask for a live look at the annual risk assessment before you buy; the site’s annual internal audit risk assessment guide lists what a scoring model should contain.
Engagement and fieldwork
Engagements carry testing, document requests, findings, issues and corrective actions, with budgeted-versus-actual hour tracking for the fieldwork itself. The client engagement portal is the more distinctive piece: first-line stakeholders get an intuitive, read-only, scope-limited way in to submit documents and review narratives without a full Resolver login. What is not documented publicly is the planning-memo structure, whether a fixed test-step template can be locked across engagements, or how review and sign-off routes work; the Global Internal Audit Standards’ (GIAS) expectation that engagement work be planned, documented and supervised is a configuration outcome here, not a shipped workflow, similar to the other no-code platforms in this guide.
Workpapers and review
This is the thinnest part of Resolver’s public documentation. The module page describes testing and findings as producing “summaries” inside audit projects, but never uses the word “workpaper,” and the help articles that would show versioning, lockdown or an audit trail for a completed file sit behind the same login this research could not pass. That does not mean the capability is missing, only unshown; a buyer whose function needs a defensible, exportable workpaper file, in the sense the site’s annotated workpaper examples guide describes, should ask to see one, signed off and locked, rather than take the marketing language on faith.
Issues and follow-up
Findings, issues and corrective actions are named as tracked objects on the module page, with automated reminders and alerts for follow-up. A platform-wide “Issue Management Summary” help article turned up in search, but its content sits behind the same login, so aging, escalation and management self-reporting are unconfirmed rather than documented. The site’s finding and issue log template is a useful checklist to compare against whatever Resolver demonstrates.
Reporting
Resolver’s module page promises real-time dashboards, one-click reporting for the audit committee, and filterable views across testing, findings, risks and controls. The same page separately claims its client engagement portal produces a 30 percent efficiency gain; no methodology or customer is named, so read that as marketing rather than measured data. Weigh both against the evidence below: reporting limitations, including the need to export to Power BI, are among the most consistent complaints on G2 and Capterra alike. The site’s audit committee deck template is the standard to hold any Resolver-built report against.
SOX and controls
SOX support does not live inside the Internal Audit Management module. It lives in Internal Controls Management, a separate, adjacent product positioned to “boost ICFR confidence” and “simplify SOX compliance,” naming both US SOX and Canada’s NI 52-109. Its capabilities, per Resolver’s own page, are a Unified Controls Library spanning risk, controls and obligations data; support for either industry-standard ICFR frameworks or an internally developed control set; control-to-requirement mapping; certification initiation and management; and dashboards for control, certification and remediation status.
Resolver’s own internal audit page still markets its templates as coming “with built-in IPPF performance standards,” even though the Global Internal Audit Standards (GIAS) replaced the IPPF Standards on 9 January 2025. That is worth asking directly during a demo: whether the templates you would actually configure have been updated to GIAS language, or whether the IPPF reference is simply uncorrected marketing copy. The site’s Global Internal Audit Standards reference map is the version to hold Resolver’s templates against.
No public case study or verified review names a customer using Resolver specifically for SOX, as distinct from incident management or general GRC, a gap worth pressing on if 404 work is a meaningful share of your plan. Nothing in the public material describes an ICFR-specific layer either: top-down scoping by materiality, deficiency evaluation and external-auditor reliance all read as configuration exercises rather than shipped workflow, the same trade-off the site’s guides to SOX 404 and evaluating control deficiencies describe for any GRC-first platform asked to carry SOX. A public company centered on 404 should weigh that against Optro, Workiva or TeamMate, where the workflow ships built in; see the site’s SOX compliance software comparison.
Analytics, integrations and automation
Resolver’s pages consistently use the words “Integrations,” “Process Automation,” “Data Warehousing,” “Workflow Automation,” “Analytics” and “Automated Reporting” as capability labels, without naming a single pre-built connector, an API product, developer documentation, or an integration to an ERP, ticketing system or identity provider. That thin documentation lines up with the complaint theme below: reviewers who need real analysis say they export to Power BI rather than build it natively in Resolver.
Security certifications are, by contrast, well documented: SOC 2 Type 2 (Security, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, Availability, Privacy) covering its Core, Perspective and Global Alert services; ISO/IEC 27001:2022, 27017:2015 for cloud security and 27701:2019 for privacy; CSA STAR Level 1; and TISAX. One detail is worth confirming before you rely on any of it: the ISO/IEC 27001 certificate linked from Resolver’s own trust page lists a listed expiry of 29 November 2025, a date that has already passed. That may be a stale link to a since-renewed certificate rather than a lapsed one, but ask Resolver for the current certificate directly rather than trusting its own trust page. No FedRAMP, GovRAMP, StateRAMP or DoD Impact Level authorization was found either, unlike TeamMate, Onspring and Diligent One, which matters most for the public-sector fit discussed below.
AI: what is real
Resolver’s AI legal page names six current features, each tied to a named model provider. That is a genuinely specific, model-attributed feature list, more than several rivals publish, but it comes with two real gaps: individual launch dates for five of the six features are not published anywhere this research could find, and the module page’s own promise of “traceability around AI-assisted activity by keeping AI-generated outputs within the relevant GRC workflow and clearly identifying AI-generated content” is the only audit-specific AI language on the site.
| AI feature | Model provider | What it does, per Resolver’s AI legal page |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Summarization | Anthropic | Summarizes regulatory content |
| Control Generation | Anthropic | Drafts control language |
| Control Recommendation | AWS | Recommends controls |
| Requirement Similarity | AWS | Matches similar requirements across the control library |
| AI Summarization | Anthropic | General summarization within GRC workflows |
| Intake Agent | Anthropic, described as running on Claude | Automates intake and triage; plausibly the feature behind the 25 June 2025 incident-intake launch, though the naming is not identical and the link is inferred |
Resolver’s data-use statement says, in its own words, “we do not train those third-party AI Models ourselves,” relying instead on providers who offer already-trained models for commercial customization. Human review is required for outputs affecting “fundamental rights, health, or safety,” and users are told to “evaluate those outputs for accuracy and appropriateness” for their own use case. Activating an AI feature is treated as informed consent, including for any cross-region transfer that feature requires, with no explicit opt-out described; one flow’s page text says no copy of the selected text remains in the alternate location, but that is not a blanket policy across all six. Get the data-use statement in writing before enabling anything, using the site’s guide to evaluating AI in audit software. The site’s review of AI tools for internal audit shows what the rest of the market ships for comparison.
The scorecard
The 12 areas and four levels are the ones used across every review in this guide. Where the public record could not confirm a capability because it sits behind Resolver’s login-gated help center, the evidence column says so rather than guessing.
| Area | Level | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Risk assessment and planning | Adequate | Risk-based planning draws on enterprise-wide risk and audit data; screen-level scoring and resourcing mechanics not publicly confirmed |
| 2. Engagement workflow | Adequate | Testing, document requests, budgeted-versus-actual hours and a distinctive client engagement portal; planning-memo and sign-off structure not documented publicly |
| 3. Workpapers and evidence | Limited | Module page never uses the word workpaper, describing testing and findings as summaries; versioning, lockdown and audit trail unconfirmed |
| 4. Issues and follow-up | Adequate | Findings, issues and corrective actions tracked with automated reminders; aging, escalation and management self-reporting detail sits behind a login |
| 5. Reporting | Limited | Real-time dashboards and one-click reporting claimed; reporting limitations and reliance on Power BI are the most consistent reviewer complaint |
| 6. SOX and controls testing | Adequate | A separate Internal Controls module with a Unified Controls Library and certification workflow; no public case study ties a customer to Resolver for SOX specifically |
| 7. Analytics and automation | Limited | Generic automation and analytics labels with no named connectors, API product or developer docs found; reviewers export to Power BI for real analysis |
| 8. AI features | Adequate | Six named features on Anthropic and AWS models with a published legal page; launch dates for five of six unconfirmed, and only one audit-specific AI claim found |
| 9. Quality program support | Limited | Nothing purpose-built for QAIP metrics found; methodology enforcement, including GIAS alignment, would be configuration |
| 10. Auditee experience | Strong | Client engagement portal with scoped, read-only external access for document submission and narrative review |
| 11. Administration, integrations and security | Adequate | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001/27017/27701, CSA STAR and TISAX are well documented; the linked ISO 27001 certificate reads as expired, and no FedRAMP, GovRAMP or StateRAMP authorization was found |
| 12. Cost and contract | Adequate | No published tiers; Vendr shows a low-confidence average from few deals, and Capterra’s third-party estimate puts a starting price near $10,000 a year |
| Vendor viability | Mixed | Backed by Kroll, a large risk-advisory parent, but 2025-2026 product investment has visibly favored incident and security work over audit |
Auditee experience is the one area that rates Strong outright: the client engagement portal is real and specifically documented, the feature to point to first if incident and investigations work already runs through Resolver. Reporting and analytics are the two areas to press hardest in a demo, where the gap between marketing claims and reviewer themes is widest.
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) | Workable | A real audit module and a plausible entry price exist, but thin native reporting and a documented setup learning curve are a heavy lift with no dedicated administrator |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | Matches the reviewer profile and the named audit customers; enough scale to justify an administrator and absorb the configuration effort |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Workable | An enterprise-heavy reviewer base (about 54 percent per G2) shows it scales, but reporting and workpaper governance at scale are not documented publicly |
| SOX-heavy public company | Poor fit | SOX sits in a separate, adjacent module with no ICFR-specific scoping or deficiency workflow shipped, and no named customer uses it for SOX specifically |
| Bank or credit union | Workable | A financial-services-heavy customer list and solid security certifications support this, but no FedRAMP authorization and no bank-specific audit case study were found |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Workable | No FedRAMP, GovRAMP or StateRAMP authorization was found, which rules out most federal work; non-federal public-sector and nonprofit buyers face standard due diligence, not a specific barrier |
| Analytics-heavy team | Poor fit | No scripted full-population testing engine or named API product; reviewers export to Power BI for real analysis |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Strong fit | The core use case: one configurable platform across enterprise risk, compliance, security, investigations and audit, matching Kroll’s own risk-advisory orientation |
Read the first and last rows together with the mid-size row: Resolver’s strongest fit is a mid-size function inside an organization already consolidating GRC, which is a narrower path to a strong fit than platforms built primarily for audit. 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 if either applies to you.
Pricing and contract
Resolver publishes a pricing model and no 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 | Average $32,471 a year; proposed reference price $64,943 | Resolver contracts in Vendr’s buyer data, built from a small number of deals; Vendr itself flags this as low-confidence |
| Capterra | September 2026 | Third-party estimated starting price around $10,000 a year; no free trial | Capterra’s own estimate, not a Resolver-stated figure |
| Resolver pricing page | September 2026 | No figures | Cost framed as a function of solutions licensed, configuration scope and active users, all by custom quote |
Three things follow from a thin public record. Treat the Vendr average as a directional band, not a quote: it comes from few deals spanning whatever solutions those buyers licensed, not audit alone, and Vendr itself calls it low-confidence. Because price is a function of solutions and configuration, the real negotiating lever is scope: get a written, line-itemed quote separating the audit module, any bundled solutions, implementation and the user-count assumption, so you can price audit alone against a rival. And ask directly about renewal terms and the data export format and cost at termination, since none of that is public; the site’s vendor-neutral RFP method and demo script have the questions to ask.
What users say
Resolver holds 4.3 out of 5 on G2 from 179 reviews, with a sampled reviewer mix around 54 percent enterprise, 36 percent mid-market and 10 percent small business. G2’s comparison pages show sub-scores of 7.9 for ease of use (166 responses), 7.1 for ease of setup (141), 7.3 for ease of admin (127), 8.9 for quality of support (159) and 8.2 for meets requirements (161), all out of 10. Because Resolver sells one platform across incident management, investigations, security and GRC, expect a meaningful share of reviewers to be describing incident-management use rather than internal audit specifically.
Gartner Peer Insights is a genuine gap: Resolver does not appear in the Audit Management Solutions market at all, unlike Optro, TeamMate, Diligent One, Workiva and SAP. It appears instead in Gartner’s separate Integrated Risk Management market as “Resolver Core,” rated 4.1 out of 5 from 11 ratings, with no theme detail at that volume; scope any Gartner figure quoted for Resolver accordingly. Capterra shows 4.4 out of 5 from 80 reviews, sentiment split 93 percent positive, 6 percent neutral and 1 percent negative, with themes mirroring G2’s. A TrustRadius page at the obvious product URL returns reviews describing a live-chat support-chatbot product instead, an apparent naming collision this research could not resolve into a reliable third rating.
| Theme | Praise or complaint | Where seen |
|---|---|---|
| Centralizing data; configuration flexibility | Praise: one place for data that used to live across spreadsheets, with workflows shaped to match how the organization works | G2, Capterra |
| Customer support | Praise: responsive; quality of support scores highest of any G2 sub-score at 8.9 out of 10 | G2 |
| End-user ease of use once configured | Praise: intuitive for day-to-day users after setup is done | G2, Capterra |
| Admin and configuration learning curve | Complaint: steep for whoever administers it; ease of setup is the lowest G2 sub-score at 7.1 out of 10 | G2, Capterra |
| Reporting limitations | Complaint: native reporting falls short; several reviewers say they export to Power BI for real analysis | G2, Capterra |
| Implementation complexity; dated interface | Complaint: heavy reliance on professional services to configure correctly, and an interface some reviewers call dated | G2, Capterra |
The pattern across every source is the same: praise for what the platform lets an administrator build, and complaints about how much building it takes and what the reports look like once you are done. That is a fair trade for an organization that already has a Resolver administrator for risk or incidents; it is a real cost for one buying Resolver for audit alone.
Implementation and migration
Resolver does not publish a typical implementation timeline, a phased methodology, or an admin-certification program for the internal audit module. Help-center article titles surfaced in search suggest a formal onboarding process exists, but the content sits behind the same customer login this research could not pass, so durations and required admin skills are unconfirmed. No named migration tooling for Excel, Access or legacy workpapers turned up in the public material either.
Budget the way you would for any configurable GRC platform: settle the audit universe structure, the finding fields and the report shells before the first configuration workshop, the sequence the site’s guide to implementing audit management software lays out for the first 120 days, and get Resolver’s methodology and timeline in writing rather than assuming them. For a small team the administrator is often the audit manager, and the configuration hours come out of fieldwork time, the trade-off the site’s audit software for small teams guide walks through.
How it compares
Onspring. The clearer choice when audit is the main reason you are buying a no-code platform. Onspring ships a dedicated internal audit product with named workpapers, review notes and AI tickmarking, rates 4.7 from 80 G2 reviews and 4.5 from 16 Gartner Peer Insights reviews in the Audit Management Solutions market (4.7 from 49 vendor-wide, across all four markets it is rated in), and carries a FedRAMP Moderate authorization Resolver lacks. Its median of $33,808 sits close to Resolver’s Vendr average of about $32,471, so price alone will rarely decide between them. See the Onspring review and the Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver comparison.
LogicGate Risk Cloud. The broader GRC catalog and the stronger analyst standing among the mid-market platforms, with a claimed Leader placement in Gartner’s October 2025 Magic Quadrant for GRC Tools, Assurance Leaders and a G2 rating of 4.6 from 191 reviews against Resolver’s 4.3 from 179. On AI, LogicGate documents named OpenAI models with opt-in use, no training on customer data and a 30-day retention window; Resolver names more features across two model providers but leaves launch dates and a blanket retention policy unstated, so LogicGate is further along on data-use documentation. See the LogicGate Risk Cloud review.
Optro and the audit-native platforms. If the organization has no existing Resolver footprint and audit is the only workload, an audit-native platform such as Optro or TeamMate ships the planning, workpaper and reporting workflow that Resolver asks you to configure, at the cost of a separate system for risk, incidents and investigations. Optro claims more than half the Fortune 500 as customers and a Vendr median of $45,947 a year, well above Resolver’s band. Start with the Optro review or the best internal audit software roundup to see where Resolver ranks against the full field.
Questions about Resolver
How much does Resolver cost?
Resolver does not publish prices. Vendr’s buyer data, viewed 26 September 2026, shows an average contract of about $32,471 a year from a small number of deals it flags as low-confidence; Capterra’s own estimate puts a starting price near $10,000 a year. The real figure depends on which solutions you license beyond audit, how much configuration is needed, and how many active users you have.
Is Resolver right for a small team?
It is workable rather than a strong fit. A small function can license the audit module on its own, but the admin and configuration learning curve that G2 and Capterra reviewers describe, together with thin native reporting, is a real cost for a team with no one dedicated to administering the platform. A small team already running Resolver for risk or incidents will find the audit module a natural extension; one starting from nothing should compare it against Onspring instead.
Is Resolver’s internal audit module the same as its SOX module?
No. Internal Audit Management and Internal Controls Management are separate, adjacent products on Resolver’s platform. Internal Audit covers the audit universe, planning, fieldwork and issues; Internal Controls Management is where SOX and Canada’s NI 52-109 work lives, built around a Unified Controls Library and certification workflows. A function running both configures and licenses them separately, though they share the same platform and can share data.
Does Resolver’s AI use our audit data to train models?
Resolver’s AI legal page says it does not train the underlying third-party models itself, relying on providers, named as Anthropic and AWS across six features, that offer already-trained models for commercial use. Activating a feature counts as informed consent, including for cross-region transfer, and only one feature has a stated no-retention line; there is no blanket retention statement across all six. Get the current data-use language in writing before enabling anything.
Why doesn’t Resolver show up in Gartner’s audit management ratings?
Because Gartner Peer Insights does not list Resolver in its Audit Management Solutions market at all, the market Optro, TeamMate, Diligent One, Workiva and SAP are all rated in. Resolver appears instead in Gartner’s separate Integrated Risk Management market, as “Resolver Core,” rated 4.1 from 11 ratings. Check which market any Gartner figure for Resolver is scoped to before comparing it against a rival’s audit-management rating.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Resolver, Kroll, Onspring, LogicGate, Optro or any other vendor named on this page. We take no vendor money, run no affiliate links and accept no sponsored placements, and no vendor saw this page before publication. Product and company names are the trademarks of their owners. Corrections: desk@internalauditguide.com.
Sources and verification
- Kroll Newsroom: Kroll Acquires Resolver — the 30 March 2022 acquisition date and undisclosed terms (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wikipedia: Kroll Inc. — the Duff and Phelps history, the January 2020 private-equity deal and the 2022 Kroll rebrand (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: About Us — the 1,000-plus organizations and $6.5 trillion claims, and the Andrews and Fletcher leadership titles (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: PPM 2000 Joins Forces With Resolver — the January 2016 combination and customer counts at that time (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: News listing — the dated 2025 Playbook Automation, AI intake and Risk Event Management launches (accessed 26 September 2026).
- PRNewswire: Resolver Positioned as a Leader in the SPARK Matrix — the June 2026 QKS Group placement and Kam Rawal’s title (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: Internal Audit Management page — module features, the IPPF-labeled templates, the client engagement portal, named customers and the client-portal efficiency claim (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: Internal Controls Management page — SOX and NI 52-109 positioning and the Unified Controls Library (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: Artificial Intelligence legal page — the six named AI features, model providers, and data-use and consent language (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: Trust and Compliance page — SOC 2, ISO 27001/27017/27701, CSA STAR and TISAX certifications, and the linked ISO 27001 certificate’s listed expiry date (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Resolver: Pricing page — confirms no published tiers or figures (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: Resolver marketplace page — the average and proposed contract figures (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Capterra: Resolver page — the 4.4 rating, estimated starting price and sentiment split (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Resolver Reviews and Compare Optro (AuditBoard) and Resolver — the 4.3 rating from 179 reviews, segment mix and praise or complaint themes from the first page; ease of use, setup, admin, support and requirements sub-scores from the second (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Audit Management Solutions market and Integrated Risk Management, Resolver page — confirms Resolver’s absence from the audit-management market and its 4.1 rating from 11 reviews as “Resolver Core” in the separate risk-management market (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.
- Onspring review — the purpose-built internal audit product Resolver most needs to beat.
- LogicGate Risk Cloud review — the broader mid-market GRC catalog.
- Optro (formerly AuditBoard) review — the audit-native market leader, for comparison.
- Best internal audit software by use case — all 25 platforms and tools ranked.
- Types of internal audit software — where no-code GRC sits among the categories.
- How to read audit software analyst reports — Gartner, Forrester, G2 and QKS Group, decoded.
- Internal audit software pricing — real numbers and negotiation across the market.
- Selecting an audit management system — the vendor-neutral RFP method.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios, including the pricing and AI questions to ask live.
- Audit software due diligence — security, residency, AI data use and vendor stability.
- Audit software for small teams — options and real prices for one to five auditors.
- Audit software for banks and credit unions — regulatory issues and exam support by platform.
- SOX compliance software compared — where a GRC-first platform like Resolver falls short of a SOX-native one.
Leave a Reply