Compare Lema

Overview 

This page provides an objective comparison between Lema and VISO TRUST as third-party risk management (TPRM) platforms.

Details for VISO TRUST are based on publicly available, high-level product information.

Where equivalent information is not available for Lema, it is explicitly noted as Not stated or Not publicly documented.

The intent is to highlight functional differences, strengths, and limitations without speculation or marketing language.

Comparison Matrix 

Dimension	Lema	VISO TRUST
UI / UX and usability	Easy to use for day-to-day work.	Built to make vendor reviews easier with guided steps, requests, and tracking in one place
TPRM workflow support	Supports end-to-end TPRM workflow	Supports the full vendor process, plus automation to keep work moving and reduce manual follow-ups
Documentation review	Automated document review and open-source intelligence review.	Uses Agentic AI to collect vendor artifacts, review documents, and organize results in a clear, step-by-step way, so teams can move faster with less manual work.
Continuous monitoring	Not clearly described	Monitors vendors over time and alerts when risk signals change.
Integrations  (availability)	Currently limited but sufficient for immediate needs (Zip, Wiz, Okta).	Connects with multiple integrations across ticketing, collaboration, and vendor management tools to keep work in one flow
Integrations  (setup effort)	Self-service, but Zip integration can be difficult to configure and maintain.	Built to work with common tools; setup effort depends on your environment and systems.
Questionnaires	Very new; customizable but inefficient. Does not auto-populate answers from reviewed documents (e.g., SOC 2).	Strong questionnaires and follow-up process to collect security documents and keep vendors on track
Reporting dashboards	Provide a limited set of metrics and lack key functionality needed for decision-making.	Designed for leadership and audit-friendly reporting (clear status and exports).
Report writing	Fully manual within the UI.	More structured outputs that support sharing results and reporting (format depends on workflow).
Performance and responsiveness	Fast, responsive, and performant.	Built for ongoing monitoring and handling lots of vendor activity over time.
Product iteration and partnership	Rapid feature iteration and strong responsiveness to feature requests.	Updates the product regularly and works closely with customers to improve workflows and automation.
Finding quality / false positives	Some automated findings are prone to false positives (e.g., breach-history flags during vulnerability disclosures); easy to report issues.	Designed to reduce noise by organizing signals and tying them to the right vendor context.
API / extensibility	Not documented	Supports integrations and extensibility so teams can connect systems and automate work.

Strengths Summary 

VISO TRUST

• Emphasis on continuous monitoring and alerting for vendor risk changes, not point-in-time reviews.Structured approach to collecting and analyzing vendor-provided documentation.
• Mature questionnaire and follow-up workflows.
• Broader publicly referenced integration ecosystem.
• Availability of APIs for extensibility.
• Better fit for scale for enterprises that deal with lots of vendors and stakeholders 
• Reporting for leaders and audits with clearer exports 

Lema

• Intuitive and easy-to-use interface for managing TPRM workflows.
• Document analysis combined with open-source intelligence review.
• Self-service integrations that meet current operational needs.
• Capable of deeper technical analysis for certain vendor integrations, such as reviewing permission grants.
• Fast and responsive platform performance.
• Consistent product development approach to feature requests.

Weaknesses and Limitations 

Lema

• Some automated findings can generate false positives, particularly around breach-related signals.
• Reporting and dashboards are basic and offer limited insight.
• Questionnaire functionality is early-stage and inefficient.
• Does not auto-populate questionnaire answers from reviewed documents.
• Report creation is fully manual.
• Zip integration can be challenging to configure and maintain, partly due to external dependencies.

VISO TRUST

• More standardized reporting outputs; limited flexibility for bespoke report formats.
• Permission-level reviews are not a focus area
• Integration setup can vary depending on your system

Functional Gaps and Observations 

• Monitoring posture: VISO TRUST keeps an eye on vendors continuously and alerts you when something changes, so issues don’t get missed between reviews. Lema may support monitoring, but it isn’t clear.
• Questionnaires: VISO TRUST has a more complete questionnaire setup, including follow-ups and tracking vendor responses. Lema’s questionnaire feature is newer and takes more manual effort.
• Reporting: Lema’s dashboards are basic, which makes it harder to summarize program status. VISO TRUST is built to roll up results into clearer views for leaders and audit needs.
• Integrations: Lema currently supports fewer integrations but allows self-service configuration; VISO TRUST references a broader ecosystem, though setup complexity is unclear.

Scale: VISO TRUST is designed to cut down manual chasing (reminders, follow-ups, tracking) and handle larger vendor programs more smoothly as the number of vendors grows.