Migrating from Spreadsheets to a GRC Platform for SOC 2

At Agency, we see the same pattern play out with nearly every client who started their SOC 2 journey without a GRC platform: spreadsheet-based compliance works until it doesn't. Most organizations reach the breaking point around their second audit cycle — evidence collection takes weeks instead of hours, access review tracking falls behind, policy acknowledgments are scattered across email chains, and the compliance lead spends more time managing spreadsheets than managing security controls. Migrating to a GRC automation platform (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, Sprinto) transforms this manual effort into automated evidence collection, continuous monitoring, and structured audit collaboration. The challenge is executing the migration without losing historical evidence, disrupting an in-progress observation period, or creating gaps in your compliance posture during the transition.

This playbook provides a step-by-step migration guide for teams transitioning from spreadsheet-based SOC 2 management to a dedicated GRC platform. It covers pre-migration assessment, platform selection timing, data export and mapping strategies, evidence migration priorities, parallel-run periods, and how to maintain audit continuity throughout the transition.

When to Migrate

Signs You Have Outgrown Spreadsheets

Signal	What It Means
Evidence collection takes more than two weeks per audit cycle	Manual evidence gathering consumes time that should be spent on actual security improvements
You have missed or delayed access reviews	Spreadsheet-based tracking lacks automated reminders and workflows
Policy acknowledgments are incomplete or untracked	Email-based distribution does not provide reliable acknowledgment tracking
Your auditor has noted evidence gaps	Manual processes create inconsistent evidence quality
You are adding a second framework (ISO 27001, HIPAA)	Managing cross-framework control mapping in spreadsheets is impractical
Your team has grown past fifty employees	Tracking personnel controls (training, acknowledgments, background checks) manually does not scale
Preparing for the audit creates a compliance sprint	Without continuous monitoring, compliance becomes a periodic event rather than an ongoing state

When NOT to Migrate

Scenario	Why Staying Manual May Be Acceptable
Pre-revenue startup with under ten employees	The cost of a GRC platform may not be justified; manual processes are manageable at this scale
First SOC 2 Type I in progress	Switching platforms mid-audit creates unnecessary risk; complete the Type I, then migrate before Type II
Auditor engagement starts within thirty days	Insufficient time for platform setup, integration, and evidence migration; wait until after the current audit

Pre-Migration Assessment

Inventory Your Current Compliance Assets

Before selecting a platform or beginning migration, we advise clients to document everything they currently manage manually:

Asset Category	What to Inventory	Where to Find It
Policies	All security policies (Information Security, Access Control, Change Management, Incident Response, etc.)	Shared drives, Google Docs, Confluence, Notion
Evidence artifacts	Screenshots, configuration exports, reports, logs collected for previous audits	Shared drives, email attachments, auditor portals
Control documentation	Control descriptions, control-to-criteria mapping, testing procedures	Spreadsheets, audit workpapers
Personnel records	Employee list, training completion records, policy acknowledgments, background check records	HR system, spreadsheets, email records
Vendor inventory	Vendor list, risk assessments, security review documentation, contracts	Spreadsheets, shared drives, contract management tools
Risk register	Identified risks, risk ratings, mitigation plans, risk owners	Spreadsheets
Incident records	Past incident reports, post-incident reviews, remediation documentation	Ticketing system, shared drives, email
Prior audit reports	Previous SOC 2 reports, management letters, remediation tracking	Auditor portal, shared drives

Assess Your Tech Stack Compatibility

GRC platforms automate evidence collection by integrating with your existing tools. Before selecting a platform, confirm that your critical tools are supported:

Tool Category	Examples	Why Integration Matters
Cloud provider	AWS, Azure, GCP	Automated configuration scanning, security group verification, encryption status
Identity provider	Okta, Google Workspace, Entra ID	Automated MFA verification, access reviews, deprovisioning monitoring
Code repository	GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket	Automated branch protection verification, code review evidence
HR system	BambooHR, Gusto, Rippling	Automated employee onboarding/offboarding tracking, training status
Endpoint management	Jamf, Kandji, Intune	Automated device compliance verification (encryption, OS updates, screen lock)
Monitoring	Datadog, PagerDuty, Splunk	Automated alerting and log retention evidence

If your critical tools are not supported by the platform, you will still need manual evidence uploads for those areas — reducing the automation benefit of the migration.

Platform Selection

Selection Criteria for Migration

Criterion	What to Evaluate
Integration coverage	Does the platform integrate with your specific tools? Check the integration catalog, not just the count
Migration support	Does the platform offer migration assistance for organizations transitioning from manual processes?
Evidence import	Can you import historical evidence from previous audit cycles?
Policy management	Does the platform support policy import, version control, and acknowledgment tracking?
Onboarding timeline	How quickly can the platform be fully operational? Compare against your next audit date
Auditor compatibility	Is your current auditor familiar with the platform? Can they access the platform for fieldwork?
Pricing	What is the annual cost relative to the time savings from automation?

Platform Overview for Migrating Organizations

Platform	Integration Count	Best For
Vanta	375+	Organizations with diverse tech stacks needing maximum integration coverage
Drata	75+	Design-conscious teams wanting the most polished user experience
Secureframe	300+	Organizations pursuing multiple frameworks (SOC 2 + ISO 27001 + HIPAA)
Sprinto	100+	Budget-conscious teams and international organizations

All platforms use per-employee tiered pricing based on headcount and frameworks. Contact vendors for current pricing.

Migration Execution Plan

Phase 1: Platform Setup (Week 1-2)

Task	Detail	Owner
Create platform account	Set up the organization account and configure basic settings	Compliance lead
Connect core integrations	Cloud provider, identity provider, code repository, HR system	Compliance lead + Engineering
Deploy endpoint agent	Install the platform's device agent on all company devices	IT / Engineering
Configure user accounts	Add all team members who need platform access	Compliance lead
Map organizational structure	Configure departments, teams, and reporting structure	Compliance lead

Phase 2: Control Framework Configuration (Week 2-3)

Task	Detail	Owner
Select Trust Service Criteria	Configure the platform for your SOC 2 scope (Security, Availability, etc.)	Compliance lead
Review auto-mapped controls	Review the platform's default control-to-criteria mapping; adjust for your environment	Compliance lead
Configure custom controls	Add any organization-specific controls not covered by platform defaults	Compliance lead
Set control owners	Assign ownership for each control to the appropriate team member	Compliance lead
Configure monitoring thresholds	Set alerting thresholds for control failures and evidence gaps	Compliance lead

Phase 3: Policy Migration (Week 2-3)

Task	Detail	Owner
Import existing policies	Upload current policy documents into the platform's policy management module	Compliance lead
Review and update policies	Update policies to reflect current practices; address any gaps identified during import	Compliance lead + Policy owners
Configure approval workflows	Set up management approval routing for each policy	Compliance lead
Distribute policies	Send policies to all employees through the platform	Compliance lead
Track acknowledgments	Monitor acknowledgment completion; follow up with employees who have not acknowledged	Compliance lead

Important: We always tell clients not to use the platform's template policies as-is. Import your existing, customized policies that reflect your actual practices. Platform templates are starting points — your customized policies contain the organization-specific details that auditors verify during interviews.

Phase 4: Evidence Migration (Week 3-4)

Not all historical evidence needs to be migrated into the platform. We recommend prioritizing based on audit relevance:

Evidence Priority	What to Migrate	Why
High — migrate immediately	Current policies and their approval records	Auditor will verify policy currency and approval
High — migrate immediately	Current access review records	Auditor will verify access review completion during the observation period
High — migrate immediately	Training completion records	Auditor will verify training compliance
Medium — migrate within 30 days	Risk assessment and risk register	Auditor reviews annual risk assessment
Medium — migrate within 30 days	Vendor inventory and risk assessments	Auditor reviews vendor management program
Low — reference only	Prior audit reports and management letters	Useful for reference but not required in the platform
Low — reference only	Historical evidence from completed audit cycles	Previous cycle evidence stays in your archive; the platform collects new evidence going forward

Phase 5: Parallel Run (Week 4-6)

We recommend running the GRC platform alongside your existing spreadsheet process for two to four weeks to validate that the platform is capturing evidence correctly:

Validation Task	What to Check
Integration evidence accuracy	Compare platform-collected evidence against manual evidence for the same controls
Coverage completeness	Verify the platform is monitoring all in-scope systems, not just those connected via integration
Alert functionality	Confirm that control failure alerts trigger correctly (test by temporarily disabling a control)
Personnel tracking	Verify all employees appear in the platform with correct department, role, and device assignments
Policy tracking	Confirm all policies show correct version, approval date, and acknowledgment status

Phase 6: Cutover and Decommission (Week 6-8)

Task	Detail
Confirm platform coverage	Verify the platform provides evidence for all controls previously tracked in spreadsheets
Archive spreadsheets	Move all compliance spreadsheets to a dated archive folder — do not delete them
Update audit workflows	Inform your auditor that evidence will be provided through the GRC platform going forward
Train team members	Ensure all control owners know how to use the platform for their responsibilities
Establish ongoing cadence	Set recurring tasks for access reviews, risk assessment updates, vendor reviews, and policy reviews in the platform

Maintaining Audit Continuity During Migration

Timing the Migration

The best time to migrate is between audit cycles — after your current audit report is issued and before your next observation period begins:

Timing	Risk Level	Recommendation
Between audit cycles (no active observation period)	Low	Ideal timing — set up the platform, migrate data, and start the next observation period with the platform in place
Early in a new observation period (within first two months)	Low-Medium	Acceptable — the platform captures most of the observation period evidence; manual evidence covers the initial gap
Mid-observation period	Medium	Workable but requires maintaining manual evidence for the first half and platform evidence for the second half
Late in observation period or during fieldwork	High	Not recommended — defer migration until after the current audit

Handling the Evidence Gap

When you migrate mid-observation period, there will be a gap between your manual evidence (pre-migration) and platform evidence (post-migration):

Strategy	Implementation
Maintain manual evidence for the pre-migration period	Keep spreadsheets and manual evidence organized and accessible for the auditor
Start platform evidence from the migration date forward	The platform automatically collects evidence from the date integrations are connected
Document the transition	Create a brief migration document noting the transition date and explaining the evidence source change
Inform your auditor	Proactively tell your auditor about the migration so they know to expect evidence from two sources

Common Migration Mistakes

Mistake	Consequence	How to Avoid
Deleting spreadsheets after migration	Loss of historical evidence that may be needed for current audit cycle	Archive spreadsheets in a dated folder; retain for at least two audit cycles
Using platform template policies without customization	Auditor identifies policy-practice gaps during interviews	Import and customize your existing policies; do not replace them with generic templates
Not connecting all integrations before the observation period	Evidence gaps for the unconnected period	Complete all integration setup before the observation period begins
Skipping the parallel run	Undiscovered evidence gaps that appear during audit fieldwork	Run parallel for at least two weeks and validate evidence against manual records
Migrating during auditor fieldwork	Disrupts evidence collection and creates confusion about evidence sources	Wait until after fieldwork to complete the migration
Not training control owners	Team members ignore platform tasks, creating new compliance gaps	Conduct a thirty-minute training session; demonstrate how each role uses the platform

ROI of Migration

Time Savings

Activity	Manual (Spreadsheet)	GRC Platform	Time Saved
Evidence collection per audit cycle	40-80 hours	5-10 hours	35-70 hours
Access review preparation	8-16 hours per quarter	1-2 hours per quarter	7-14 hours per quarter
Policy distribution and acknowledgment tracking	4-8 hours per cycle	Under 1 hour	3-7 hours per cycle
Compliance status reporting	4-8 hours per month	Real-time dashboard (0 hours)	4-8 hours per month
Audit preparation and fieldwork support	20-40 hours	5-10 hours	15-30 hours
Total annual time savings	—	—	150-350 hours per year

Cost Justification

Factor	Calculation
Platform cost	$6,000-$15,000/year for most startups and growth-stage companies
Time savings	150-350 hours/year × average compliance professional hourly cost
Reduced audit fees	Auditors spend less time on fieldwork with platform-provided evidence — potential five to fifteen percent fee reduction
Reduced finding risk	Continuous monitoring catches issues before audit, reducing exception risk
Multi-framework leverage	Platform supports additional frameworks (ISO 27001, HIPAA) without proportional cost increase

For organizations where the compliance lead's time is valued at one hundred dollars per hour or more, the time savings alone justify the platform cost within the first year.

Key Takeaways

• We recommend migrating to a GRC platform when spreadsheet-based compliance management consumes more time than actual security work — typically around the second audit cycle or when your team exceeds fifty employees
• The ideal migration window is between audit cycles — after your current report is issued and before the next observation period begins
• Inventory all compliance assets before migration: policies, evidence, control documentation, personnel records, vendor inventory, and risk register
• We advise clients to prioritize policy migration and active evidence collection over historical evidence import — the platform collects new evidence automatically going forward
• Run a two-to-four-week parallel period to validate that the platform captures evidence correctly before decommissioning spreadsheets
• Archive your spreadsheets after migration — do not delete them; retain for at least two audit cycles
• Import and customize your existing policies rather than adopting platform templates, which may not reflect your actual practices
• Inform your auditor about the migration proactively so they understand the evidence source transition
• Annual time savings of one hundred fifty to three hundred fifty hours typically justify the platform cost within the first year
• Connect all integrations before the observation period begins to avoid evidence gaps

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I migrate to a GRC platform during an active SOC 2 observation period?

What we tell clients is: yes, but with careful planning. The primary challenge is maintaining evidence continuity — you need manual evidence for the pre-migration period and platform evidence for the post-migration period. Connect all integrations as early as possible to maximize the platform's evidence coverage. Document the transition date and inform your auditor that evidence will come from two sources. We've seen migrations work smoothly in the first two months of an observation period; migrating in the final months is riskier because the platform covers less of the observation period.

Do I need to import all my historical evidence into the GRC platform?

The advice we give most often here is: no. The platform collects evidence automatically from the date integrations are connected forward. Historical evidence from previous audit cycles should be archived in your shared drive or file system for reference but does not need to be imported into the platform. The only historical items worth importing are current policies (with approval records), the current risk register, and current vendor inventory — items the auditor will review in the current cycle.

How long does the full migration take?

Based on what we see across our client base, plan for six to eight weeks from platform purchase to full cutover. Week one to two covers platform setup and integration. Week two to three covers control framework configuration and policy migration. Week three to four covers evidence migration for high-priority items. Week four to six is the parallel run. Week six to eight is cutover and decommission of manual processes. Organizations with simple tech stacks (fewer integrations) can complete migration in four to five weeks.

Should I switch auditors when I switch to a GRC platform?

In our experience, not necessarily. Most established SOC 2 auditors are familiar with major GRC platforms and can access them for evidence review during fieldwork. We recommend asking your current auditor whether they have experience with your chosen platform. If they do, staying with your current auditor provides continuity. If they do not, the platform vendor can recommend auditors familiar with their platform through their auditor partner network.