TeamMate and Workiva show up on the same shortlist for an unusual reason: neither is the platform most likely to win a straight feature-by-feature bake-off, and both are strong for what they were built to do before internal audit was the point. TeamMate is what thirty years of paperless workpaper files inside government audit offices, banks and credit unions look like as software, sold per auditor and cheap at the small end. Workiva is what a decade of drafting the 10-K on one linked platform looks like once the company decided controls, and then audit, belonged in the same system, with no seat limit on who touches it. The question that actually separates the two is not which one has more features. It is where your function’s center of gravity sits: an operational or regulatory audit plan with no public filing attached, where TeamMate’s per-user pricing and public-sector depth usually win, or a SOX program that already lives, or should live, on the platform that files your 10-K, where Workiva’s unlimited seats change the arithmetic.
This comparison covers what each company is and who owns it, where their audit workflows, pricing, SOX modules 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 from public figures only, and a clear recommendation by situation. 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 Workiva review behind it.
Verdict. TeamMate and Workiva are both credible for SOX, for different reasons, so the practical question is not which one scores higher on a checklist. It is whether your function’s work is mostly operational or regulatory audit with no filing attached, where TeamMate’s audit-first workflow and per-auditor pricing usually win, or a SOX program that already runs, or should run, on the platform that files your 10-K, where Workiva’s unlimited seats change the economics. Default to TeamMate; let Workiva win only where that second condition is actually true.
Best for. TeamMate: public sector, higher education and nonprofit audit shops, banks and credit unions, and functions of any size that want an audit-native workflow without buying a reporting platform to get it. Workiva: SOX-heavy public companies and large functions where finance already runs SEC reporting on the system.
Not for. TeamMate: a SOX-centric public company choosing its primary controls system from scratch, where Workiva and Optro (formerly AuditBoard) are the usual shortlist. Workiva: first systems for one-to-five-person teams, most public-sector, higher-education and nonprofit audit shops, and analytics-heavy teams that need full-population testing rather than connectors.
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’s buyer data, updated February 2026, puts Workiva’s median contract at $49,420 a year (164 purchases, whole platform, not the audit module alone). Neither vendor publishes a list price; quote only.
Last verified. 27 September 2026.
In this guide
- TeamMate 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
- Migration between them, or running both
- Our recommendation
- Questions about TeamMate and Workiva
- Sources and verification
- Related guides
TeamMate and Workiva in one table
Before the differences, the shared facts. The table uses the categories every review in this guide uses: owner, category, deployment, audit modules, pricing model, price evidence and ratings, plus the fact that frames the whole comparison: which government program authorizes each one, and which kind of “public” each vendor actually serves.
| Attribute | TeamMate (Wolters Kluwer) | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| Owner | Wolters Kluwer, listed on Euronext Amsterdam (WKL); no private-equity owner | Public company, NYSE: WK; no private-equity owner |
| Category | Audit-native platform, per-user products (Audit, Controls, Risk & Compliance) | GRC and reporting platform; audit is one of about six solution families, unlimited users |
| Headquarters | Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands (Wolters Kluwer) | 2900 University Boulevard, Ames, Iowa |
| Founding and history | Sold more than 30 years, first as TeamMate AM, now TeamMate+; StandardFusion renamed TeamMate Risk & Compliance 9 Jan 2026 | Founded 2008 as WebFilings; renamed Workiva 2012; IPO 2014; GRC platform relaunched 9 March 2026 |
| Deployment | TeamCloud (Azure), on-premise, or offline in the field per its documentation | Cloud SaaS only, AWS hosting across four regions |
| Core audit-relevant modules | TeamMate Audit (TeamMate+) and TeamMate Controls, priced separately, plus the TeamMate Analytics Excel add-in | Audit Management and Controls Management, both inside the March 2026 GRC relaunch |
| Pricing model | Quote only, per named user by edition; hosting included or tiered | Quote only, solution-based; unlimited users; price by metrics such as entities, controls and integrations (Essential, Standard, Advanced tiers) |
| Price evidence | City of Norman, OK, 28 Feb 2025: $6,150.88 a year, two-user Essentials with analytics and hosting; NY Comptroller: $988,160 over five years (2023) | Vendr, Feb 2026: median $49,420 a year, range $12,736 to $153,365, 164 purchases, whole platform; Kentucky TRS: $21,000 fixed fee, Audit Management onboarding (Sep 2025) |
| FedRAMP and public-sector standing | FedRAMP Marketplace lists Audit and Controls as authorized, Moderate, agency, since 13 May 2022, plus GovRAMP; the product page itself still says “upcoming” — confirm in writing | FedRAMP Moderate listed on the security page, no hedge; no state contract vehicle found in the sources used here |
| Analyst recognition | Chartis named Wolters Kluwer a category leader for internal audit solutions, 2019-2021; it republishes Gartner’s April 2026 Market Guide on its own site | No vendor-claimed Leader placement found; cites a self-commissioned Forrester Consulting study (208 percent ROI claim) |
| Gartner Peer Insights (Audit Management Solutions market) | 4.2 from 120 reviews | 4.3 from 597 reviews |
| G2 | 4.3 from 597 reviews | 4.5 from more than 2,130 reviews (platform-wide; 66 mention “internal audit”) |
| Vendor viability | Wolters Kluwer, €6.1 billion 2025 revenue, listed, no exit-clock pressure; a small line inside a very large group | Public company, $884.6 million FY2025 revenue, 97 percent gross retention, $815 million cash; a small line inside a reporting company |
Two things stand out immediately. Neither vendor answers to a private-equity owner, unlike Optro, Diligent One or Archer, so neither carries an acquisition-driven exit clock; the risk with both is attention inside a larger group, not survival. And the FedRAMP line is the sharper asymmetry: Workiva’s security page states a plain FedRAMP Moderate listing, while Wolters Kluwer’s own product page for TeamMate Audit still says “upcoming” even though the FedRAMP Marketplace lists it as authorized, so a government buyer should get that confirmed in the contract on either side. The G2 ratings gap is also not what it looks like: Workiva’s 2,130-plus reviews cover the whole reporting platform, and only 66 mention internal audit by name.
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.
Center of gravity: an audit-first classic against a SOX-and-reporting platform
TeamMate’s audit product has been a third-line tool since before “GRC” was a category: an audit universe, continuous risk assessment, a multi-year plan since December 2024, and a paperless workpaper archive with real-time sign-off that reviewers cite as the reason they bought it. Its scorecard rates risk assessment, engagement workflow and workpapers all Strong. Workiva’s Audit Management module, relaunched 9 March 2026, the same day AuditBoard became Optro, is the newest of about six solution families on a platform whose core business is SEC reporting; its own review found the audit-specific documentation thinner than the SOX material, with nothing public on capacity modelling or deficiency aggregation, and its scorecard rates planning and engagement workflow only Adequate. What Workiva wins outright is the workpaper model: because a workpaper is a Workiva document or spreadsheet, the linking that keeps a 10-K consistent also ties a finding to the test behind it. Where the plan has nothing to do with a filing, TeamMate’s purpose-built workflow is the safer default; where SOX and the filing already sit on Workiva, that linking is an advantage TeamMate cannot match.
Pricing model: per named user against unlimited seats
The two pricing models measure different things, and the gap matters more than either median suggests. TeamMate charges per named user by edition, with Controls, Risk & Compliance and services priced as separate lines; Norman’s quote works out to $3,075.44 a user a year including analytics and hosting. Workiva charges nothing per seat, auditors and auditees alike, and instead prices by operating metrics such as entities, controls and integrations, in Essential, Standard and Advanced tiers. That favors a function with many auditees but a modest audit team on Workiva, exactly where TeamMate starts adding fees, and favors a small function with few named users on TeamMate, as Norman’s $6,150.88-a-year quote shows. One discrepancy to resolve in writing: Vendr’s own guidance says Workiva pricing depends partly on named users, contradicting its “unlimited users” language; get the actual metrics your quote is built on, not just the total. The internal audit software pricing guide sets both models beside every other vendor’s in this guide.
Public sector against public company: deployment and FedRAMP
The names in the brief are not an accident: TeamMate’s natural home is the public sector, and Workiva’s is the public company. TeamMate can run on TeamCloud, on-premise, or offline in the field; the vendor claims more than 800 government agencies, holds a GSA Schedule contract to 2028, and the FedRAMP Marketplace lists Audit and Controls as authorized at the Moderate level since 13 May 2022, alongside GovRAMP. Every renewal we found, from Norman to the New York State Comptroller to two UK single-tender notices, was sole-sourced, because the workpaper archive lives inside the product. Workiva has no on-premise option and no state contract vehicle of the kind TeamMate holds; its FedRAMP Moderate listing is real, and the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System’s 2025 purchase shows it can work in the public sector where the budget already exists, but that is the exception, not the rule. Its natural customer is the public company already filing on the platform, where audit is an add-on to a relationship that predates it. A bank or credit union sits between the two: TeamMate has more financial-services references and an on-premise option examiners are used to; Workiva has named bank customers and a 2026 five-solution community-bank deal, but its audit features there still need a live demonstration. The banks and credit unions guide has the examiner-facing questions to ask either vendor.
SOX and controls
Both vendors are old hands at SOX, for related reasons. TeamMate Controls documents controls across financial reporting, sustainability, compliance and operations, runs testing cycles, pushes self-assessment to control owners, and certifies ICFR, ICSR and ICC controls; because it shares the platform with TeamMate Audit, a controls exception and an audit issue can live in one issue population. Its own scorecard rates SOX Adequate rather than Poor, but it is a smaller, separately priced product with a smaller SOX review base than either Optro or Workiva. Workiva’s Controls Management is the most mature part of its own platform, built for customers who already draft the 10-K there: risk-based scoping, certifications, COSO 2013 mapping, an evidence analyzer, a control creator, and rules-plus-AI testing. The feature an internal auditor will actually use is the Leveraged SOX Control Testing report inside Audit Management, letting an operational audit rely on the SOX team’s results instead of retesting them, the coordination the Global Internal Audit Standards ask for under Standard 9.5. Neither vendor publishes how a failed test becomes a rated deficiency; make either one show that step, on the same population, in a live demo using the site’s own audit software demo script, and the guides to SOX 404 and the risk and control matrix template describe the program either tool has to serve.
Analytics, integrations and automation
TeamMate Analytics most separates it from a reporting platform: an Excel add-in with more than 150 tools and more than 180 documented tests, data preparation, sampling and scheduled workflows that attach to the engagement through the Document Linker. It was bundled into Norman’s smallest edition, effectively free for a small team, and the vendor’s Integration Hub connects to more than 1,000 third-party applications; G2 lists 26 verified TeamMate integrations. Workiva’s data tools, Wdata, Chains and Data Prep, sit on a much wider connector catalog inherited from its finance and close heritage (SAP S/4HANA, Oracle, NetSuite, Snowflake, BigQuery, BlackLine), plus scripting and, since July 2026, a Model Context Protocol gateway. What it is not is an audit analytics tool: there is no library of scripted, full-population tests of the kind Caseware IDEA, Arbutus or ACL Analytics ship, and G2 reviewers on both sides complain about missing pivot tables and spreadsheet limits. Score the 2026 automated-testing features on either platform as continuous monitoring of controls, not as a substitute for a real scripting tool; an analytics-heavy team keeps one alongside whichever platform it buys.
AI: what’s real, and the data-use terms
TeamMate’s AI is deliberately modest: the TeamMate+ AI Editor, announced 2 June 2025, is a writing assistant with pre-built prompts that improve documentation, adjust tone, summarize and translate, with data isolation, no data retention, encryption and a PII blocker as its published safeguards; there is no agent that plans an audit or proposes findings, so its output is a suggestion an auditor accepts or rejects inside a workpaper, checkable by design. Workiva’s audit-specific AI is newer and more ambitious, arriving mostly in 2026: Risk and Control Intelligence in 2025, a flowchart visualizer, evidence analyzer and control creator in the Winter 2026 release, an audit report agent and a remediation agent, and, only in September 2026 at Amplify 2026, an automated testing solution with no general-availability date, gated to “advanced solution tiers.” Its security page states that generative AI is optional, that model providers see only the prompt data and do not retain it, and that customer data does not train the models, which reads about as well as TeamMate’s equivalent statement.
| Capability | TeamMate | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| First audit-relevant AI release | 2 June 2025 (AI Editor) | September 2025 (Workiva AI, Amplify 2025) |
| What it does | Drafting assistance: tone, summaries and translation inside a workpaper | Flowchart generation, evidence extraction, control drafting, report and remediation drafting |
| Autonomous testing | Not offered | Automated testing for internal audit and GRC, announced Sep 2026, no GA date, advanced tiers only |
| Training on customer data | Stated no | Stated no |
| Checkability | High: a suggestion accepted or rejected inside a workpaper | Unproven for the newest agents; Gartner’s caution against agent-washing applies |
The scorecard below calls AI features Adequate for both, for opposite reasons: TeamMate’s modest scope is easy to check but does little of the work, and Workiva’s more ambitious agents have not been in the audit module long enough for reviewers, or this guide, to weigh in. Gartner’s April 2026 market guide told buyers across this whole category to be “particularly wary of agent-washing”; that caution applies to Workiva’s newest claims specifically, and the guide to evaluating AI in audit software has the test protocol for either vendor’s demo.
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. Neither vendor was used hands-on; the evidence is documentation, procurement records and verified reviews.
| Area | TeamMate | Workiva |
|---|---|---|
| Risk assessment and planning | Strong — universe, continuous risk assessment, multi-year planning since Dec 2024 | Adequate — universe and risk scores; nothing public on capacity modelling |
| Engagement workflow | Strong — thirty years of templates, TeamStore library; reviewers note too many clicks | Adequate — programs and PBC requests documented; thinner than the SOX material |
| Workpapers and evidence | Strong — paperless archive with sign-off, audit trail, Document Linker | Strong — linked documents and spreadsheets, a detailed audit trail |
| Issues and follow-up | Adequate — response tracking; no batch edit or sign-off, one assignee per request | Adequate — issues log, a remediation agent; validation and aging not described |
| Reporting | Adequate — Insight reports, Power BI API; “Inadequate Reporting” is the top G2 complaint | Strong — connected reports, a report agent; reviewers note formatting limits |
| SOX and controls testing | Adequate — TeamMate Controls: library, testing cycles, ICFR certification; a smaller product | Strong — COSO mapping, an evidence analyzer, a control creator; a large SOX base |
| Analytics and automation | Strong — more than 150 tools and 180 tests, bundled in the Norman quote | Adequate — wide connectors, Wdata, an MCP gateway; no full-population tests |
| AI features | Adequate — AI Editor for drafting, published data-use safeguards; no audit agents | Adequate — named, dated agents; newest are tier-gated and unproven in audit |
| Quality program support | Strong — Business Rules Engine and methodology templates from professional practice | Limited — IIA-aligned report templates only; nothing on QAIP metrics |
| Auditee experience | Adequate — requests and response tracking; usability complaints with many items | Adequate — PBC requests, unlimited users; reviewers praise the request function |
| Administration, integrations and security | Strong — ISO 27001, SOC 2, TISAX, HIPAA; FedRAMP Moderate and GovRAMP; Azure by region | Strong — SOC 1 and 2, ISO 27001, FedRAMP Moderate; AWS in four regions |
| Cost and contract | Adequate — quote only, per user; a two-user edition’s implementation cost more than its subscription | Adequate — unlimited users is a real advantage, but pricing rises with program metrics |
| Vendor viability | Strong — Wolters Kluwer, listed, €6.1 billion revenue, no exit pressure | Strong — public, $884.6 million revenue, 97 percent gross retention |
Read across, TeamMate’s board is more evenly Strong wherever the work is audit-native: planning, engagement workflow, analytics and quality program support. Workiva matches or beats it exactly where its own core business overlaps with audit, in workpapers, reporting and SOX, and falls back to Adequate or Limited furthest from that core. That pattern is the scorecard’s real finding, and it is the same one the center-of-gravity question is really asking.
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 | Workiva | What breaks the tie |
|---|---|---|---|
| First system for a small team (1 to 5 auditors) | Strong fit | Poor fit | Norman’s $6,150.88-a-year quote is hard to beat; Workiva pays off only once finance already licenses the platform |
| Mid-size function (6 to 25 auditors) | Strong fit | Workable | TeamMate’s workflow is proven at this size; Workiva mainly works when SOX or filing already runs on it |
| Large or global function (25+ auditors) | Strong fit | Strong fit | A genuine tie: TeamMate scales with regional hosting and an on-premise option; Workiva scales with no seat limit |
| SOX-heavy public company | Workable | Strong fit | Workiva’s controls module is the more mature, filing-linked one; TeamMate Controls is smaller and separately priced |
| Bank or credit union | Strong fit | Workable | TeamMate has more financial-services references and on-premise; Workiva’s audit features there still need a demo |
| Public sector, higher education or nonprofit | Strong fit | Poor fit | TeamMate’s agency count, FedRAMP authorization and GSA Schedule beat Workiva’s FedRAMP Moderate on affordability |
| Analytics-heavy team | Strong fit | Workable | TeamMate Analytics bundles tests into the contract; neither vendor replaces full-population testing |
| Consolidating GRC across the three lines | Workable | Workable | A genuine tie: TeamMate’s Risk & Compliance is nine months into integration; Workiva’s second-line depth is thinner than a dedicated GRC suite |
Three rows are genuine ties or near-ties: large or global functions, SOX-heavy public companies going the other way, and GRC consolidation. In the first two, the tie-breaker is not on this table at all. It is which platform, if either, already holds your SOX program or your financial close.
Total cost of ownership over five years
The two pricing models measure different things, which makes a matched quote impossible to construct from public data alone. TeamMate’s only itemized public price is a two-user floor; Workiva’s is a whole-platform median with nothing audit-specific about it. The table states plainly what each side does and does not represent, rather than pretending to compare like with like.
| TeamMate | Workiva | |
|---|---|---|
| What the scenario represents | The City of Norman, Oklahoma’s own 28 Feb 2025 quote: TeamMate+ Audit Essentials, two users, TeamMate Analytics and TeamCloud hosting included | This guide’s construction: Vendr’s Feb 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) | $21,780.88 ($6,150.88 plus $15,630 Foundation Implementation, after a $6,000 discount) | $70,420 ($49,420 plus $21,000) |
| Years 2 through 5, per year | $6,150.88 (no public escalator found; held flat as a labeled assumption) | $49,420 (no public escalator found; held flat as a labeled assumption) |
| Five-year total | $46,384.40 — this guide’s arithmetic, not a vendor figure | $268,100 — this guide’s arithmetic, not a vendor figure |
| What it does not capture | A floor for the smallest, two-user edition; Controls, Risk & Compliance and each added named user are separate lines, and Norman’s own total with optional eLearning and expert time was $26,395.88 in year one alone | The median is platform-wide, not audit-only; a first-time buyer with no other Workiva product should expect the entity and control metrics to push the real number higher |
Treat both totals as directional. TeamMate’s figure is a genuine floor for the smallest documented edition; the New York State Comptroller’s very different $988,160 five-year contract shows how far the range extends once the population behind a renewal grows, without telling us how many users it covers. Workiva’s figure mixes a whole-platform median with a small pension fund’s audit-only onboarding fee: a company with no other Workiva product should expect the real number to land higher, and one that already licenses SEC reporting there should expect it lower, since adding a module with unlimited seats usually costs less than adding a new platform. Ask both vendors for the metrics or the user count their quote is built on, not just the total; the internal audit software pricing guide has the negotiation levers for each model.
Migration between them, or running both
A straight migration between TeamMate and Workiva is uncommon, because the two are rarely bought to solve the same problem. TeamMate’s own procurement record shows the more common exit path when it happens at all: the Office of the Auditor General of Canada replaced legacy TeamMate AM with Caseware, not Workiva, 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 Workiva in either direction. The far more common pattern is coexistence: a public company can file its 10-K and run SOX controls on Workiva while TeamMate runs the broader operational audit plan, or a bank or public-sector body with no filing at all can simply run TeamMate Controls as its SOX system of record and never touch Workiva. Neither arrangement requires the two systems to talk to each other, and we found no documentation of a native integration between them.
On exportability, neither vendor’s own review found a statement as clean as some rivals give: TeamMate’s guidance stresses obtaining the workpaper archive’s export format before signing, and Workiva’s review flags the same open question about whether a workpaper exports as a document or only as a database extract. Get that answer in writing before you sign, and read the TeamMate alternatives and Workiva alternatives pages before assuming switching, rather than coexisting, is the only option.
Our recommendation
Start with what already exists in the building. If SOX or SEC reporting already runs on Workiva, add its Audit Management module before shopping elsewhere: the seats are free, the Leveraged SOX Control Testing report gives you a real coordination benefit from day one, and the incremental cost is usually smaller than standing up a second platform. That is the Strong fit for SOX-heavy public companies and for large functions that already carry Workiva elsewhere.
If your plan is mostly operational or regulatory audit work with no filing behind it, or if no other Workiva product is already licensed, TeamMate is the safer default: a purpose-built workflow with three decades behind it, an on-premise or offline option, public-sector depth few rivals match, and a price floor low enough for a two-person team. That is the Strong fit for public sector, higher education, nonprofit and financial-services audit shops of almost any size.
Neither wins the SOX platform decision from a cold start: TeamMate Controls is adequate but the smaller product with the smaller SOX review base, so a public company with no Workiva relationship yet should put Optro and Workiva on the shortlist ahead of TeamMate for that specific decision; the Optro vs TeamMate and Optro vs Workiva comparisons cover it directly. Public-sector, higher-education and nonprofit buyers should read TeamMate’s Strong fit as the real default and Workiva’s Poor fit as a real no for most budgets, FedRAMP Moderate notwithstanding; the small-team guide has cheaper options if even a two-person floor is too much. An analytics-heavy team should decide on workflow and SOX fit alone, since neither replaces a full-population testing tool; the types of internal audit software guide sorts those from the platforms compared here. Whichever way it lands, run the shortlist past the site’s 15 buying mistakes guide before signing: assuming a familiar name is automatically the better fit, and leaving AI add-ons unpriced until after the contract is signed, are two of the most common ways buyers overpay in exactly this pairing.
Questions about TeamMate and Workiva
Is TeamMate or Workiva better for SOX?
Both are credible: TeamMate Controls shares a platform with the audit product and certifies ICFR, ICSR and ICC controls, while Workiva’s Controls Management is the most mature part of a platform built to keep a 10-K consistent, with a Leveraged SOX Control Testing report an audit can rely on instead of retesting. The practical answer is whichever platform already holds your SOX program; where neither does, Workiva and Optro have the larger SOX-specific review bases and are the more common shortlist for a controls-first buyer starting from scratch.
Which is cheaper, TeamMate or Workiva?
At the small end, TeamMate is far cheaper: a two-user Essentials edition with analytics and hosting was quoted at $6,150.88 a year, against a Vendr median of $49,420 for Workiva’s whole platform. The comparison changes as headcount and auditee population grow, because TeamMate charges per named user while Workiva charges nothing per seat and instead prices by metrics such as entities and controls; a function with many auditees but a modest control population can end up cheaper on Workiva’s model even though its median looks higher. See the cost illustration above and the pricing guide for every vendor side by side.
Can we run TeamMate and Workiva at the same time?
Yes, and it is more common than switching between them. A public company can file on Workiva and run SOX controls there while TeamMate handles the broader operational audit plan, or run TeamMate Controls as the SOX system of record and reserve Workiva for the filing itself. Neither vendor documents a native integration between the two, so any reconciliation between them today is manual.
Is either platform FedRAMP authorized for a government audit shop?
TeamMate has the deeper public-sector record: the FedRAMP Marketplace lists Audit and Controls as authorized at Moderate since 13 May 2022, alongside GovRAMP and a GSA Schedule contract to 2028, even though Wolters Kluwer’s own product page still describes FedRAMP as “upcoming.” Workiva’s security page lists FedRAMP Moderate without that hedge, but we found no state contract vehicle in the sources used here, and its own public-sector fit rating is Poor rather than Strong. Confirm the exact authorization and boundary for your environment in writing.
Is either one right for a small audit team?
TeamMate is one of the few major platforms a one-to-five-person function can afford as a first system; the smallest quoted edition bundled analytics and hosting for two users at $6,150.88 a year. Workiva is rated a Poor fit at that size, since a small team without Workiva already in finance would be paying for a reporting platform to use one module of it. The audit software for small teams guide and the individual TeamMate and Workiva alternatives pages cover the rest of the shortlist.
Do TeamMate and Workiva integrate with each other?
We found no public documentation of a native integration between the two products specifically. Each publishes its own broad connector catalog for enterprise systems and identity providers, and each has recently added an AI interoperability layer of its own, TeamMate’s Integration Hub APIs and Workiva’s Model Context Protocol gateway, but neither 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 Wolters Kluwer, 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
- Wolters Kluwer: TeamMate Audit product page — features, deployment options, FedRAMP described as upcoming (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).
- FedRAMP Marketplace: TeamMate FedRAMP (FR2207643307) — Moderate impact, agency authorization since 13 May 2022 (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: acquisition of StandardFusion, 9 January 2026 — price, headcount and the TeamMate Risk & Compliance rename (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer: launch of TeamMate+ AI Editor, 2 June 2025 — 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 — $988,160 five-year support and maintenance (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: TeamMate reviews — 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).
- Workiva security page — certifications, FedRAMP status and AI data-use statements (accessed 26 September 2026).
- G2: Workiva reviews — rating, tagged pros and cons and the internal-audit filter (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Gartner Peer Insights: Audit Management Solutions market — both vendors’ ratings and review counts (accessed 26 September 2026).
- Wolters Kluwer summary of Gartner’s Market Guide for Audit Management Software, 2026 — 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.
- TeamMate review — editions, the on-premise option and real prices, in full.
- Workiva review for internal audit and SOX — what the March 2026 GRC relaunch actually changed.
- TeamMate alternatives — what to consider before you migrate off TeamMate.
- Workiva alternatives for internal audit and SOX — the shortlist for teams outside its ecosystem.
- Optro vs TeamMate — AuditBoard’s successor against the audit classic.
- Optro vs Workiva — the other audit-native platform against the same reporting suite.
- TeamMate vs Diligent One — two audit veterans, two different bets.
- 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 — a vendor-neutral RFP method.
- The audit software demo script — 25 scenarios that make vendors show, not tell.
- 15 mistakes internal audit teams make when buying software — and how to avoid each one.
Leave a Reply