TeamMate and Onspring end up on the same shortlist for an unusual reason: both hold a FedRAMP Moderate authorization aimed at the same government and higher-education buyer, and very little else about them is alike. TeamMate Audit is Wolters Kluwer’s audit-native workflow tool, the kind of purpose-built platform a third-line function buys when audit is the only job it needs software to do. Onspring is a no-code GRC platform, the same category as LogicGate and Resolver, where internal audit is one configured application among several a customer can build on the same login. The FedRAMP badge on each vendor’s page hides how differently the two get a public-sector buyer there.
This comparison covers what each vendor’s FedRAMP authorization actually includes, how the public-sector contracts in the record actually happen, where the two genuinely differ on workflow, SOX, analytics and AI, and a side-by-side scorecard and fit-by-situation table to help you decide. It follows the method in how we review audit software, sits inside the independent buyer’s guide to internal audit software, and draws on the full TeamMate review and Onspring review behind it.
Verdict. TeamMate and Onspring both clear the FedRAMP Moderate bar for a public-sector buyer, but for different reasons: TeamMate for an audit-native workflow with analytics bundled in and a two-year head start on authorization, Onspring for a configurable platform that can carry audit alongside SOX and other GRC applications on the same login.
Best for. TeamMate: public-sector, higher-education and bank or credit-union audit shops that want a dedicated workflow with real analytics included, and do not need the same platform to run SOX or enterprise risk management. Onspring: government and nonprofit buyers configuring internal audit alongside other GRC applications on one no-code platform, especially a first system for a small team.
Not for. TeamMate: a buyer that wants one platform to also run SOX, vendor risk and enterprise risk management without a second contract. Onspring: an analytics-heavy team that needs full-population testing, or a bank examiner-facing controls program with no track record on the platform yet.
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. The City of Norman, Oklahoma’s quote of 28 February 2025 puts TeamMate+ Audit Essentials, two users with analytics and hosting included, at $6,150.88 a year; Vendr has no dedicated TeamMate listing. Vendr’s buyer data, viewed 26 September 2026, puts Onspring’s median deal at $33,808 a year, range $9,972 to $55,810. Neither vendor publishes a list price; quote only.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- TeamMate and Onspring in one table
- Where they are different
- Head to head: the scorecard
- Fit by situation, side by side
- Total cost of ownership over five years
- Migration between them, or running both
- Our recommendation
- Questions about TeamMate and Onspring
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
TeamMate and Onspring in one table
Before the differences, the shared facts. TeamMate is what the site’s vocabulary calls an internal audit platform, built specifically to run the audit function end to end. Onspring is a no-code GRC platform, the same category as LogicGate and Resolver, where internal audit is one configured application among several. The table below lines up owner, category, deployment, pricing and the FedRAMP status that frames this whole comparison.
| Attribute | TeamMate | Onspring |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Wolters Kluwer, listed on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL); no private-equity owner | Onspring Technologies, LLC, privately held; Capital IP Investment Partners has been a strategic investor since 9 May 2023 |
| Category | Internal audit platform (audit management software) | No-code GRC platform with a dedicated internal audit product |
| Founded / HQ | Wolters Kluwer HQ: Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands | Founded 2010; HQ Overland Park, Kansas |
| Deployment | TeamCloud (SaaS, on Microsoft Azure), on-premise, or offline | Cloud SaaS, including a FedRAMP-authorized GovCloud environment |
| Audit-related products | TeamMate Audit (TeamMate+), TeamMate Controls, TeamMate Analytics (Excel add-in), TeamMate Risk & Compliance (formerly StandardFusion), the TeamMate+ AI Editor | One configurable platform; the internal audit product ships an auditable entity library, coverage map, linked workpapers, findings, an external auditor portal and AI tickmarking |
| Pricing model | Per named user, per edition; only the Essentials edition is confirmed in the public record | By users, by products (unlimited employee users), or hybrid, across Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum service levels |
| Price evidence | City of Norman, OK, quote (28 Feb 2025): $6,150.88 a year for two users; no Vendr listing exists | Vendr, viewed 26 Sep 2026: median $33,808 a year, range $9,972-$55,810 |
| Ratings | Gartner Peer Insights 4.2 (120, Audit Management Solutions market); G2 4.3 (597) | Gartner Peer Insights 4.5 (16, Audit Management Solutions market) and 4.7 (49, vendor-level across four markets); G2 4.7 (80); Capterra 4.8 (105) |
| FedRAMP | TeamMate Audit and Controls, Class C (Moderate), agency path, certified since 13 May 2022; 10 ATO/ATU letters on file | Onspring GovCloud, Class C (Moderate), agency path, certified since 27 Mar 2024; sponsored to “In Process” status on 19 Jan 2023 by the Tennessee Valley Authority |
Two things stand out immediately. TeamMate is the older, narrower, audit-specific tool with a much longer public-sector paper trail; Onspring is the newer, broader platform betting a buyer would rather configure one system than run several. And the ratings need a footnote before you compare them: Onspring’s 4.7 pools four Gartner Peer Insights markets together, while its Audit Management Solutions figure specifically is 4.5 from 16 reviews, the fairer number to set against TeamMate’s 4.2 from 120 in that same market.
Where they are different
The table above is where the two look comparable. What follows is where a demo, and a contract, will show the real gaps, organized by the decisions that usually drive a shortlist.
Public-sector paths: FedRAMP authorization and how the contracts actually happen
FedRAMP Moderate authorization means a cloud environment has been assessed against the Moderate baseline and approved for federal use through a sponsoring agency (the “agency path”) or the Joint Authorization Board. It is not company-wide: it applies to a named product in a named hosting environment. The FedRAMP Marketplace now labels both listings “FedRAMP Certified” rather than “Authorized”, a terminology change in the program’s newer framework, but both mean the same Class C, Moderate-impact, agency-path status. TeamMate Audit and TeamMate Controls have held it since 13 May 2022; Onspring GovCloud since 27 March 2024, after the Tennessee Valley Authority sponsored it to “In Process” status on 19 January 2023. TeamMate’s own product page still says “FedRAMP options (upcoming)” in one place even though its public-sector page claims “FedRAMP and GovRAMP Authorized” (GovRAMP is the state and local government equivalent); Onspring makes no GovRAMP claim. Confirm the exact boundary before assuming it covers what you are buying: TeamMate Analytics sits outside TeamMate’s authorized scope, and only the GovCloud environment carries Onspring’s.
An authorization only matters if a buyer can get the product under contract, and here the record shows two different routes. TeamMate holds its own General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule (GSA MAS 47QSWA18D008F, running from 22 August 2018 to 21 August 2028) and a set of individually documented agency contracts; its public-sector page also claims more than 800 agencies as customers, a vendor claim we could not independently verify. Onspring’s federal and state reach runs mostly through resellers, including Carahsoft, and we found no procurement record naming an Onspring contract amount.
| Record | TeamMate | Onspring |
|---|---|---|
| Federal contract vehicle | Its own GSA Multiple Award Schedule, 47QSWA18D008F (2018 to 2028) | Sold through resellers such as Carahsoft; no dedicated GSA schedule found |
| City government | City of Norman, OK: $6,150.88 a year, two-user Audit Essentials edition, quoted 28 Feb 2025 | No public contract amount found |
| State government | New York State Comptroller: $988,160 over five years for support and maintenance, sole-source exemption approved 30 Jun 2023 | No public contract amount found |
| County government | Montgomery County, MD, Office of Inspector General: maintenance running to 9 Jun 2027 with options to 2030; amount not published | No public contract amount found |
| National government (UK) | £30,322 ex VAT maintenance on 10 legacy TeamMate AM licenses, reduced from 25, 18 Mar 2024 to 17 Mar 2027 | Not applicable; Onspring’s public-sector record found was US federal and state |
Read the gap between the two sides of that table carefully. It most likely reflects TeamMate’s longer history in comptroller’s-office and inspector-general-style government audit shops and Onspring’s newer, reseller-mediated federal channel, rather than anything about product quality. A buyer already inside a Carahsoft-type vehicle may find Onspring faster to put under contract than starting a TeamMate procurement from scratch; a buyer who wants to see what a comparable agency actually paid has far more to go on with TeamMate. Either way, ask for three reference agencies of your own size and get the current contract vehicle in writing; the site’s vendor-neutral RFP method covers how to structure that ask.
Audit workflow depth
TeamMate Audit ships as a fixed audit workflow: planning, a risk and control matrix, test steps, review and sign-off are the reason the product exists, and Wolters Kluwer keeps extending that spine rather than rebuilding it, adding a Multi-Year Audit Planning and Business Rules Engine on 11 December 2024. An auditor opens the tool and the methodology is already there.
Onspring’s internal audit product covers the same stages on paper: an auditable entity library, an annual coverage map, linked workpapers, multi-level sign-off and review notes are all named features. The difference is how they get built. Onspring’s own case studies describe the University of Virginia’s audit team building its own apps on the platform, and Williams replacing a homegrown tool with an audit-and-SOX build that reportedly landed under time and budget. That is a real strength for a team that wants its workflow shaped to match an existing methodology rather than adopting a vendor’s, but the depth you get is whatever your team configures, not what ships in the box. A first-time buyer with no configuration resource of its own should weight that difference heavily; the site’s guide to building an audit work program and the risk and control matrix template are useful whichever platform ends up holding them.
SOX and controls testing
TeamMate keeps SOX in a separate, named product: TeamMate Controls sits alongside TeamMate Audit rather than inside it, and the City of Norman quote covers only the Audit Essentials edition, public confirmation that the two are priced and packaged apart. A pure internal-audit buyer never has to touch Controls; a buyer who also runs SOX 404 has to add it, and we found no public price for it on its own.
Onspring has no separately named SOX module; a controls-testing program is another app configured on the same no-code platform used for internal audit. That has not stopped customers doing it: the vendor’s own case studies name Williams (audit and SOX, replacing a homegrown tool) and Warner Bros. Discovery (tagged for SOX) running programs this way. Whether that trade-off suits you depends on whether you would rather buy a purpose-built controls-testing product or build one on infrastructure you already understand. Either way, the site’s SOX 404 guide and the SOX compliance software comparison cover the wider field, including products built for ICFR specifically rather than adapted to it.
Analytics and automation
This is the sharpest difference between the two. TeamMate Analytics is a dedicated Excel add-in with more than 150 built-in tests and a Continuous Analyzer, bundled into the Audit Essentials edition at no extra line item, as the Norman quote shows. A TeamMate customer gets a real, purpose-built audit analytics tool in the same purchase as the workflow.
Onspring has nothing comparable. Its “Agentic GRC” release, announced 27 July 2026, automates tasks inside the platform itself rather than running statistical or full-population tests against transaction data, and nothing in its product materials describes continuous monitoring the way TeamMate Analytics or a dedicated tool such as Caseware IDEA does. A team that needs real data testing will end up buying or building that capability separately, whichever workflow platform it chooses, which the site’s guide to journal entry analytics illustrates well: the tests do not care which workflow tool holds the resulting workpaper.
AI: what’s real
Gartner’s Market Guide for Audit Management Software (13 April 2026, analyst James Bourke) tells buyers to be “particularly wary of agent-washing”, and both vendors are worth reading against that standard rather than their launch announcements. The TeamMate+ AI Editor, launched 2 June 2025, is scoped to drafting assistance inside the workpaper, with stated data isolation, no data retention, end-to-end encryption and a PII blocker; Wolters Kluwer does not name the underlying model. Onspring AI (14 October 2025) and the Agentic GRC release that followed it (27 July 2026) both say plainly that they run on Anthropic’s Claude models, gated to the Silver service level or higher, with an AI Governance Council named in the launch material and a quote from Ryan Lougheed, Onspring’s VP of Platform.
| Capability | TeamMate | Onspring |
|---|---|---|
| First named AI release | 2 June 2025 (TeamMate+ AI Editor) | 14 October 2025 (Onspring AI) |
| What it does | Drafting assistance inside the workpaper, with a PII blocker | Platform-wide AI features plus “Agentic GRC” task automation (27 Jul 2026) |
| Named model | Not disclosed | Anthropic’s Claude models |
| Gating | Included with the AI Editor | Requires the Silver service level or higher |
| Data retention and training terms | States no retention; model not named | Not found published; ask in writing |
Neither vendor has published what happens to customer data used by these features beyond those short statements; get the retention and training terms in writing rather than assuming either vendor’s general privacy policy covers it, and see the site’s guide to evaluating AI in audit software for the questions worth asking either vendor’s demo team.
What reviewers say
Verified user reviews point in a consistent direction: TeamMate reviewers are comfortable with the tool but frustrated by its reporting, while Onspring reviewers like how much they can shape the platform themselves, with a learning curve as the price of that flexibility. On G2, “Inadequate Reporting” is TeamMate’s single largest complaint theme at 19 mentions, against “Ease of Use” as its largest praise theme at 76; Onspring’s reviewers cite ease of use and customization about equally as its top strengths, 22 mentions each, with a learning curve its most-cited complaint at 10. A G2 review from 12 November 2023 (mid-market banking) describes no batch sign-off on recommendations and no sorting or filtering for auditees on TeamMate; a Capterra reviewer described Onspring as a “glorified Excel table”, more a comment on its configurability than a complaint. TeamMate’s own G2 pricing insights show an average discount of 8 percent, a four-month time to implement and a 14-month return on investment; Onspring publishes no equivalent figures.
Integrations, security and administration
TeamMate’s certifications page lists ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, TISAX, HIPAA, CSA STAR and GDPR/CCPA adherence alongside its FedRAMP and GovRAMP claims; TeamCloud runs on Microsoft Azure and commits to 99.5 percent or greater availability, and G2 lists 26 integrations on the product’s compare page. Onspring’s security page states an annual SOC 2 Type II audit, CSA STAR Level One and penetration testing, a public API (version 2, documented on a Swagger page) and Microsoft 365 web co-authoring since platform version 30.0 (28 August 2024). What Onspring’s public pages do not detail is single sign-on, multi-factor authentication or data residency options, which a buyer with strict identity or data-location requirements should confirm directly rather than assume from the security page’s silence.
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 read straight across. Where the public record is thin, the evidence line says so rather than guessing.
| Area | TeamMate | Onspring |
|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Strong — audit-native planning, extended by a Multi-Year Planning and Business Rules Engine (Dec 2024) | Strong — an auditable entity library, coverage map, resourcing and budget tracking, with the risk register feeding planning directly |
| Engagement workflow | Strong — planning, RCM, test steps, review and sign-off are the product’s core function | Strong — linked workpapers, multi-level sign-off and review notes are named features, built through configurable forms |
| Workpapers and evidence | Strong — the AI Editor (2 Jun 2025) adds drafting help inside the workpaper, with stated data isolation and no retention | Adequate — a named evidence locker, linked workpapers and AI tickmarking; versioning, lockdown and retention are not described on public pages |
| Issues and follow-up | Adequate — issue tracking sits inside the audit-native workflow; escalation specifics not published | Strong — findings are linked to controls and policies with remediation plans and automated escalations, and owners reach the workflow through a portal with no separate login |
| Reporting | Adequate — “Inadequate Reporting” is G2 reviewers’ single largest complaint, at 19 mentions | Adequate — final reports come from PDF or Word templates and configurable dashboards; reviewers note visualization limits, calling some layouts a glorified Excel table |
| SOX and controls testing | Adequate — TeamMate Controls is a separate, separately priced product from TeamMate Audit | Adequate — no named SOX module; case studies (Williams, Warner Bros. Discovery) show it done on the same platform |
| Analytics and automation | Strong — TeamMate Analytics, a dedicated Excel add-in with 150+ tests, bundled into the Essentials edition | Limited — no full-population testing found; “Agentic GRC” automates platform tasks, not data |
| AI features | Adequate — the AI Editor is scoped to drafting, with stated safeguards; the model is not named | Adequate — Onspring AI and Agentic GRC both run on Anthropic’s Claude and are opt-in and logged, but no public data-use or retention statement was found |
| Quality program support | Strong — a Business Rules Engine run by professional practice teams enforces methodology through templates; ask to see its QAIP metrics dashboards directly | Adequate — methodology can be enforced through configured workflows and dashboards; nothing is purpose-built for QAIP metrics specifically |
| Auditee experience | Adequate — document requests, response tracking, surveys and notifications reach auditees directly; a G2 review (12 Nov 2023) still describes no batch sign-off and no sorting or filtering for auditees managing many items | Strong — survey and request workflows with secure evidence submission, an external auditor portal, and no per-seat cost for action-plan owners under product licensing |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong — ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type 2, TISAX, HIPAA, CSA STAR and GDPR/CCPA adherence; 26 G2-listed integrations | Strong — annual SOC 2 Type II, CSA STAR Level One, a public API; SSO, MFA and data residency detail not published |
| Cost and contract | Adequate — no published list price; the Norman quote shows implementation priced and discounted separately | Strong — the pricing model itself is published, with unlimited employee users under product licensing and implementation included in some models, even though no list price is quoted |
| Vendor viability | Strong — a listed parent (€6.1 billion 2025 revenue) still investing in the line: StandardFusion (9 Jan 2026), a Hitachi Cyber resale partnership (1 Sep 2026) | Favorable — founder-owned since 2010 with no rebrands; three Capital IP Investment Partners rounds (2023, 2025, 2026) bring growth capital without a change of control, though its smaller size than Optro or Wolters Kluwer makes acquisition the long-run risk |
Read across, the two are closer than the category labels suggest: TeamMate is Strong in six of the twelve areas (risk assessment, engagement workflow, workpapers, analytics, quality program support, and administration and security) and Adequate everywhere else, with nothing Limited. Onspring is also Strong in six, a different six (risk assessment, engagement workflow, issues and follow-up, auditee experience, administration and security, and cost), Adequate in five, and falls to Limited in exactly one area, analytics, the one job a no-code platform is not built to do. The real difference is not depth against configurability across the board, as the category labels imply; it comes down to the audit-specific analytics TeamMate bundles and Onspring does not, set against the cost transparency and auditee-facing workflow Onspring’s platform pricing model provides more plainly than TeamMate’s per-user audit tool.
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 fact that actually breaks the tie.
| Situation | TeamMate | Onspring | What breaks the tie |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Norman’s two-user quote and Onspring’s by-user pricing both work at this size |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | Both scale with added users; neither needs a size-specific edition to negotiate |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Workable | TeamMate’s multi-year planning and public-sector scale beat Onspring’s thinner large-function record |
| SOX-heavy public company | Workable | Workable | A genuine tie: both run SOX as a separate, added build rather than inside the core audit product |
| Bank or credit union | Strong fit | Workable | TeamMate’s certification set and procurement record outweigh Onspring’s thinner security detail and non-bank case studies |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Strong fit | Strong fit | A genuine tie: TeamMate’s decades of government contracts against Onspring’s GovCloud, sponsored to authorization by the Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Analytics-heavy team | Strong fit | Poor fit | TeamMate Analytics is a real, bundled analytics tool; Onspring has nothing comparable |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Workable | Strong fit | TeamMate Risk & Compliance is a newly acquired, still-separate product; Onspring already runs audit and SOX apps on one platform for the same customers |
Two rows are genuine ties: first systems for a small team, and public-sector, higher-education and nonprofit buyers generally. In both, the tie-breaker is not really on this table. It is whether you would rather see a comparable agency’s exact price, which favors TeamMate, or configure the FedRAMP boundary yourself and accept a reseller in the middle, which is what buying Onspring through Carahsoft actually means.
Total cost of ownership over five years
Neither vendor publishes a rate card, so treat this as an illustration built from labeled assumptions and public figures, not a quote for your organization. It models a five-auditor public-sector or higher-education function evaluating the base editions of each product, with implementation and optional training kept as separate line items so you can see what each vendor bundles and what it does not.
| Line item | TeamMate (illustration) | Onspring (illustration) |
|---|---|---|
| What the scenario represents | The City of Norman, OK, two-user Audit Essentials quote ($6,150.88/yr) scaled linearly to five users — a labeled assumption, not a published per-seat rate | Vendr’s reported median deal, $33,808/yr; the deal size and user count behind that median are not published |
| Year 1 license | $15,377 | $33,808 |
| Year 1 implementation | $15,630 (Norman’s Foundation Implementation, after a $6,000 discount) | No public figure; community notes cite in-house builds running $50-$75 an hour more than a partner-led one |
| Years 2-5 license (4 years, flat) | $61,508 | $135,232 |
| Optional add-ons (excluded from the totals below) | eLearning $1,071.20; Expert on Demand $4,078.80 | AI add-on requires the Silver service level or higher; incremental cost not published |
| Five-year total, base case | $92,515 — this guide’s arithmetic, not a vendor figure | $169,040 — license only; no public implementation figure to add |
The gap looks larger than it probably is. TeamMate’s figure comes from a real two-user quote scaled up, which understates any volume discount; Onspring’s figure is a market-wide median that already reflects negotiation across many deal sizes, and it is missing an implementation cost that TeamMate’s includes. Get a written quote for your own headcount before either number does any real work in a budget conversation. Software is only part of that budget; the site’s guide to how much an internal audit costs covers the rest, and internal audit software pricing covers how to negotiate down from a first quote.
Migration between them, or running both
A straight migration between TeamMate and Onspring is uncommon, because the two are rarely bought to solve the same problem. The one documented TeamMate migration we found went a different direction entirely: the Office of the Auditor General of Canada replaced its legacy TeamMate AM with Caseware, not Onspring, running a privacy impact assessment on how the move changed the handling of personal information in audit records. We found no record of an organization switching directly between TeamMate and Onspring in either direction.
Coexistence is the more realistic pattern. A government or nonprofit body could run Onspring as its broader GRC platform for vendor risk, enterprise risk or SOX while keeping TeamMate as the dedicated audit tool for the same team, since neither vendor documents a native integration between the two and any reconciliation between them today would be manual. A team starting from nothing has the cleaner choice: pick the one category you actually need first, using the types of internal audit software guide to decide between an audit-native platform and a configurable GRC one, rather than assuming you will need both. Whichever you choose, get the workpaper and evidence export format in writing before you sign, since neither vendor’s public documentation states it as plainly as some rivals do.
Our recommendation
Pick TeamMate if you run, or are building, an audit function that wants a dedicated workflow tool with real analytics bundled in, especially if you are a bank or credit union, a large or global function, or you already lean on full-population testing. Its public-sector paper trail, including its own GSA Schedule contract, also makes it the easier one to benchmark against a comparable agency’s actual price.
Pick Onspring if the real project is bigger than internal audit: a government or nonprofit buyer that wants to configure audit, SOX and other GRC applications onto one no-code platform, particularly a first system for a small team with no separate budget for a controls-testing product later. Accept that its federal reach runs through resellers rather than a direct schedule contract, and that you will not find a comparable agency’s exact price in the public record the way you can for TeamMate.
Neither should be your only comparison. A team actually leaving TeamMate is more often weighing it against Diligent One or Workiva, and the TeamMate alternatives guide covers that decision directly. A team weighing Onspring against other no-code options should see Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver, and a buyer still unsure whether it wants an audit-native platform or a GRC suite at all should start with GRC suite vs standalone audit management software. Run both vendors through the same demo script before deciding, and check the buying mistakes guide for the negotiation errors that cost buyers the most.
Questions about TeamMate and Onspring
Do TeamMate and Onspring actually compete for the same buyer?
Only partly. TeamMate is built specifically for the audit function; Onspring is a configurable platform where audit is one of several applications a customer builds. They land on the same shortlist because both are affordable for a small team and both hold a FedRAMP Moderate authorization, but a buyer who also wants SOX, vendor risk or enterprise risk management on one login will weight Onspring’s breadth more heavily than a buyer who wants only an audit tool.
Are TeamMate and Onspring both FedRAMP authorized?
Yes, both hold a Class C (Moderate), agency-path authorization: TeamMate Audit and TeamMate Controls since 13 May 2022, Onspring GovCloud since 27 March 2024. Check the boundary before assuming it covers everything you want to buy: TeamMate Analytics sits outside TeamMate’s authorized scope, and only the GovCloud environment carries Onspring’s.
How much do TeamMate and Onspring cost compared with each other?
The only hard TeamMate figure in the public record is a two-user Audit Essentials quote at $6,150.88 a year, with implementation priced separately. Onspring has no equivalent named-agency quote, but Vendr’s buyer data puts the median deal at $33,808 a year, ranging from $9,972 to $55,810. Neither figure is a list price; get a quote for your own headcount.
Can Onspring run a SOX program the way TeamMate Controls does?
Not as a separately named module. Onspring’s case studies name Williams and Warner Bros. Discovery running SOX programs on the same configurable platform used for internal audit, which works but puts the design effort on your team rather than a packaged product.
Which is the better fit for a bank or credit union?
TeamMate, on the current evidence. It has a deeper regulated-industry and public-sector procurement record, while Onspring’s case studies skew toward corporate and public-sector audit rather than bank-specific controls testing. The site’s guide to audit software for banks and credit unions covers the wider shortlist.
Is either one right for a small audit team of one to five auditors?
Yes, both rate a Strong fit for a first system. TeamMate’s Audit Essentials edition is priced for a two-user team in the public record; Onspring’s by-user and by-product pricing models scale down without a separate small-team edition to negotiate. The site’s guide to audit software for small teams and to setting up internal audit in a small company cover the rest of the build-out.
internalauditguide.com has no commercial relationship with Wolters Kluwer, Onspring 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
- FedRAMP Marketplace: TeamMate FedRAMP (FR2207643307) — Moderate impact, agency authorization since 13 May 2022 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- FedRAMP Marketplace: Onspring GovCloud (FR2231648178) — Moderate impact, agency authorization since 27 March 2024 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: TeamMate Audit product page — product structure and the “FedRAMP options (upcoming)” wording (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: TeamMate for the US public sector — the more-than-800-agencies claim, GovRAMP and the GSA Schedule contract (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: acquisition of StandardFusion, 9 January 2026 — the TeamMate Risk & Compliance rename (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: launch of TeamMate+ AI Editor, 2 June 2025 — features and data-protection safeguards (accessed 26 September 2026).
- City of Norman, Oklahoma: council agenda attachment with the TeamMate+ quote of 28 February 2025 — subscription, implementation and optional items (accessed 26 September 2026).
- New York State Office of the State Comptroller: single/sole source notice, contract C001165 — the $988,160 five-year support and maintenance figure (accessed 26 September 2026).
- UK Contracts Finder: TeamMate AM maintenance notice — the £30,322 legacy-license maintenance figure (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Office of the Auditor General of Canada: privacy impact assessment — TeamMate AM’s end of life and replacement by Caseware (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: comparison page including TeamMate — TeamMate’s rating and review themes (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring: internal audit product page — named features of the audit product (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Onspring: About page — founding year, headquarters and user count (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Vendr: Onspring marketplace page — the median and range deal figures (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Onspring reviews — Onspring’s rating, review count and theme mentions (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.
- TeamMate review — editions, deployment options and real prices, in full.
- Onspring review — the full walkthrough of the no-code platform and its audit product.
- TeamMate alternatives — what to consider before you migrate off TeamMate.
- Optro vs TeamMate — AuditBoard’s successor against the audit classic.
- Optro vs Onspring — the audit-native suite against the mid-market no-code platform.
- TeamMate vs Diligent One — two audit veterans, two different bets.
- TeamMate vs Workiva — audit-first platform against the SOX and reporting suite.
- Onspring vs LogicGate vs Resolver — the mid-market no-code shortlist for audit teams.
- GRC suite vs standalone audit management software — how to make that call before you shortlist anything.
- Internal audit software vs compliance automation — why Vanta and Drata are not on this list at all.
- Best internal audit software — 25 platforms and tools compared by use case.
- Types of internal audit software — audit management, GRC, SOX, compliance and analytics, defined.
- Internal audit software pricing — real numbers, pricing models and how to negotiate.
- Selecting an audit management system — a vendor-neutral RFP method.
Leave a Reply