Compare CyberGRX

When teams evaluate third-party risk management (TPRM) solutions, VISO TRUST and Process Unity CyberGRX stand out for different reasons. Both aim to help organizations understand, monitor, and mitigate vendor risk, but they take distinct approaches to doing so.

How Each Platform Works

VISO TRUST is an AI-native TPRM platform designed to automate and accelerate the entire vendor risk lifecycle. It uses agentic AI to collect and validate evidence from vendor artifacts and public signals, run instant risk assessments, automate workflows, and continuously monitor change across tens of thousands of vendors. The core emphasis is on replacing manual assessments with real-time, evidence-backed insights and streamlined workflows that cut weeks off traditional processes.

Process Unity CyberGRX is built around the world’s largest third-party cyber risk exchange. Rather than attempting to automate every step internally, it provides a shared platform where standardized risk assessments can be completed once and reused across many customers. Its analytics drive deeper insight into residual risk, threat modeling, and risk prioritization, often including attack scenario modeling and integration with broader threat data.

Key practical tension: Exchange models (like Process Unity CyberGRX) rely heavily on vendor participation and willingness to share assessment evidence through the exchange. In real programs, many vendors, especially net-new suppliers, are reluctant to share sensitive artifacts (SOC reports, pen tests, detailed controls evidence) ahead of a formal relationship, even if NDAs exist. That can lead to low vendor adaptation and force teams into a two-track process (exchange for some vendors, manual collection for the rest). 

Feature Comparison

Capability	VISO TRUST	CyberGRX
Core Approach	AI-driven automation of assessments and monitoring	Collaborative risk exchange with shared assessments
Risk Assessment Delivery	Instant, evidence-based assessments	Standardized assessments usable by multiple customers (when vendors participate)
Vendor Experience and Adoption	Works well with vendors who prefer direct sharing; less “exchange friction”	Net-new vendors often resist exchange participation; adoption can be uneven, limiting reuse benefits
Coverage Reality	Designed to handle long-tail vendor ecosystems consistently	Value depends on how many of your vendors are already in the exchange; gaps can force manual fallback
Continuous Monitoring	Yes, automated alerts and signal tracking	Varies, risk insights based on exchange data
AI & Automation	Agentic AI for workflow orchestration	Advanced analytics on shared assessment data
Scalability	Designed for large, dynamic vendor ecosystems with a consistent process	Scales via marketplace of validated assessments, but incomplete participation can create program fragmentation

When Teams Choose Which

Teams that tend to favour VISO TRUST

• Need high automation with minimal manual effort
• Have large, dynamic vendor ecosystems (including many long-tail / net-new vendors)
• Want continuous evidence and change monitoring, especially for periodic reassessments
• Prefer a consistent single-track program (not split between exchange vs manual)

Teams that tend to favour CyberGRX

• Value shared intelligence and assessment reuse when their vendor base is well represented in the exchange
• Want analytics-driven insight into risk prioritization and residual risk
• Have a vendor ecosystem where many vendors are already onboarded and willing to share via the exchange

Bottom line: both platforms improve how vendor risk is understood and managed, but they differ sharply in operational reality. VISO TRUST emphasizes end-to-end automation and consistent coverage across vendor populations. CyberGRX can deliver value through reuse and analytics, but the exchange model can underperform when vendor participation is low, often creating a two-pronged process and reintroducing manual effort for the majority of vendors.