Compare Safe Security
As cyber threats grow more complex and vendor ecosystems expand, organizations are rethinking how they manage risk. Safe Security and VISO TRUST both apply AI-driven approaches to help teams scale risk decisions, but they differ meaningfully in platform focus, depth of TPRM automation, and day-to-day operational value.
Platform Focus and Scope
Safe Security positions itself as a broad cyber risk management platform spanning enterprise cyber risk quantification (RQ), exposure management, and third-party risk management (TPRM) within a single system. Its core narrative is helping security and risk leaders express cyber risk in financial and business terms, for prioritization and executivedecision-making, often appealing to CISOs looking for consolidation.
VISO TRUST, on the other hand, is purpose-built for third-party risk management. It focuses on automating the vendor risk lifecycle: accelerating assessments, collecting and validating evidence, orchestrating workflows, and continuously monitoring vendor risk posture. This specialization tends to resonate most with teams overwhelmed by large vendor ecosystems, frequent reassessments, and high operational burden.
Automation and AI Capabilities
Both platforms leverage AI, but in different ways.
- Safe Security applies AI across internal and external cyber risk domains, emphasizing continuous measurement and modeling of business impact. However, customers have reported gaps between the marketed âagentâ story and real usage; specifically, that the agent was not perceived as valuable enough to adopt.
- VISO TRUST uses agentic AI to directly reduce TPRM toil: automating evidence collection, validating artifacts, streamlining questionnaires, accelerating reassessments, and monitoring vendors for changes. This tends to translate into more consistent operational outcomes (cycle time reduction, fewer follow-ups, less vendor friction).
Feature Comparison
| Capability | Safe Security | VISO TRUST |
| Core Focus | Enterprise cyber risk and consolidation (RQ + TPRM) | Enterprise third-party risk management |
| Risk Quantification | Yes (business impact modeling) | Limited / not primary focus |
| Vendor Assessments | Integrated capability, but not always the strongest day-to-day workflow | Core strength: fast assessments and evidence-backed workflows |
| Reassessment Automation | Reported gaps | Strong automation for reassessments and monitoring-driven validation |
| Vendor Evidence Collection & Interaction | Often incidental / not deeply adopted by some teams | Strong: evidence collection, artifact validation, vendor workflows |
| Risk Advisories & Nth-Party Intelligence | Reported to provide less value in some cases | Stronger perceived insight and vendor-centric intelligence |
| AI / Agent Value | Agent value is sometimes not realized in practice | Agentic AI is closely tied to operational outcomes |
| Ideal Users | CISOs, enterprise risk teams | CISOs, Security & vendor risk teams |
Choosing Between the Two
Organizations looking for broad, business-aligned cyber risk visibility may find Safe Security a better fit. Teams primarily focused on scaling vendor risk assessments quickly and efficiently may prefer the targeted approach offered by VISO TRUST.