Not All SOC 2s Are Created Equal

TL;DR

5 Things to Watch for in SOC 2 Reports in 2025

SOC 2 is table stakes — but without scope scrutiny, evidence transparency, and real-world context, it can leave you blind to third-party risk. Here’s what to watch for in 2025:

A Type II report isn’t enough. If it doesn’t cover the right systems or include relevant controls, it’s just paper.
Scope is vendor-defined. Many SOC 2s cover only the “Security” category. If Privacy and Confidentiality are missing, you’re in the dark.
No exceptions = red flag. Real audits almost always uncover something. A perfect report might mean a shallow one.
Automation without transparency is risky. Automated SOC 2 tools help – if set up right. But most reports don’t say how they were built.
Reports are static. Risk is not. SOC 2 is a lookback. If your vendor moves fast, last year’s audit doesn’t reflect today’s exposure.

Read on to see how to actually evaluate a SOC 2 in today’s real-world risk environment.

Introduction

If you lead security at a large org – or help manage vendor risk – you already know the basics. You’ve read the reports. You’ve probably signed a few.
What’s changed is the context around them.

Today’s SOC 2 Type II reports are showing their age. Teams are shipping code faster than ever. AI is accelerating development across every vertical. Vendors are stacked on top of other vendors. And increasingly, companies are turning to automation platforms to streamline SOC 2 prep.

That’s not a bad thing. Tools can absolutely support strong outcomes. The problem is: most reports don’t tell you whether or witch of those tools were used – or how deeply the auditor interrogated the results.

In 2025, the real risk isn’t in a SOC 2 with a few exceptions. It’s in the “clean” reports that gloss over everything important.

A Type II Doesn’t Guarantee Relevance

SOC 2 Type II gets a lot of weight in vendor assessments. It’s considered the gold standard. But too often, people stop at the label.

Just because a vendor has a Type II doesn’t mean it covers the systems you rely on – or the risks that matter to your organization. Vendors can scope reports around a single internal system, leaving customer-facing infrastructure entirely out.

Ask yourself: was the audit performed on the actual product your team will depend on? Were any subservice providers excluded? Were production systems included – or just administrative environments?

Real-world example: A SaaS company gets SOC 2 coverage for its internal HR portal – but not its customer-facing app. If you rely on that app, the report is irrelevant.

Bottom line: Type II just tells you that some controls were tested over time. It doesn’t say if they were the right ones.

The Scope Is What the Vendor Says It Is

SOC 2 lets vendors define which Trust Services Criteria (TSCs) they want to include in the audit. Only one – Security – is mandatory. The rest, like Privacy or Confidentiality, are optional. That means what’s not included in the report may be just as important as what is.

Let’s say your vendor handles sensitive customer data. If their report only covers “Security” but skips “Privacy,” you’re left without assurance on how personal data is managed, stored, or deleted.

Here’s a quick overview of what each TSC covers:

Security: Basic access controls, firewalls, and monitoring – foundational but not complete.
Availability: Uptime, failover, and incident response – key for production environments.
Processing Integrity: Ensures data isn’t just transmitted, but accurate and uncorrupted.
Confidentiality: Important for IP protection and sensitive corporate data.
Privacy: Deals directly with PII, consent, and regulatory alignment.

So when you get a SOC 2, don’t just look for the checkmark. Ask which categories were in scope. If the report skips the areas tied to your actual risk exposure, it’s not helping you.

A Perfect Report Might Be a Shallow One

Zero exceptions. No findings. No remediation.

That might sound reassuring, but in real audits, it’s almost unheard of. Mature organizations – even those with excellent security – often have small issues pop up. Missed employee training. A late patch. A misconfigured control that got caught and corrected.

If a SOC 2 has no findings, ask why. It could be that the audit scope was too narrow, or the auditor didn’t dig deep. Or maybe the vendor pushed back on disclosure to keep things clean for marketing purposes.

Some warning signs to watch for:

A report under 50 pages
Boilerplate control descriptions that look copy-pasted
No detail in test results – just “pass” or “verified” without context
Section 4 (which should include control-by-control results) reads like a checkbox list

Transparency builds trust. And paradoxically, a few minor exceptions – paired with thoughtful remediation – can make a report feel more credible than one that looks flawless.

Automation Tools Help – But Only If Used Transparently

Automated compliance tools have made compliance dramatically more accessible. They can automatically collect evidence from integrated systems, flag control gaps, and even pre-fill audit documentation.

That’s good for everyone – when used correctly.

But most SOC 2 reports don’t tell you if automation was used. They won’t disclose which parts of the evidence collection were platform-driven. And they almost never explain how the auditor validated that evidence.

That creates a risk of blind confidence. Two reports may look identical, but one was driven by custom configurations and deep oversight – while the other ran on default settings with no verification.

What can you do?

Ask vendors what tool (if any) they used
Ask how it was configured and who maintained it
Ask the auditor how they validated evidence collected by the platform

This isn’t about rejecting automation. It’s about recognizing that without context, automation makes audit quality harder – not easier – to assess.

SOC 2 Is a Snapshot. Your Risk Is Real-Time.

SOC 2 Type II reports are historical documents. They evaluate how controls operated during a fixed time frame – usually the past 6 or 12 months.

But vendor environments don’t sit still. Teams release features weekly. Cloud architecture shifts. A sub-processor gets swapped out. None of that shows up in a SOC 2 until the next audit – if it’s even included.

This creates a mismatch: your organization is trying to manage dynamic third-party risk, but the document in front of you is a static snapshot.

If the report says everything was fine in March, but the vendor rolled out a new AI-driven product line in April? You have no visibility into whether it’s covered – or secure.

Mitigation strategies:

Combine SOC 2 with continuous risk monitoring tools
Track vendor news, funding events, and product releases
Re-assess high-risk vendors mid-cycle if something changes

A report that’s 100% accurate for last year doesn’t help if the threat model has already shifted.

Use SOC 2 Reports as a Starting Point – Not a Stamp of Approval

SOC 2 compliance isn’t useless. But it’s not absolute either.
Treat the report like a risk signal – not a final answer. Use it to:

Spot vendors that take controls seriously
Ask informed follow-up questions
Identify where automation or audit scope may have cut corners

If it’s clean, dig deeper. If it’s vague, ask more. And if it’s outdated, check what’s changed.

A strong SOC 2 report is only as good as the scrutiny you apply to it.