Build Trust. Strengthen Security.
Achieve Compliance.

What SOC 2 evaluates

SOC 2 examines whether a service organization's controls support the Trust Services Criteria. Security is required; availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy are included when relevant to the service and customer commitments.

Type I and Type II reports

• Type I evaluates control design at a specific point in time.
• Type II evaluates whether controls operated effectively throughout a defined review period.

A practical readiness path

• Confirm scope, systems, data flows, and customer commitments.
• Map existing controls to the applicable criteria and identify gaps.
• Assign control owners, formalize policies, and collect consistent evidence.
• Remediate gaps and perform a readiness review before engaging an independent auditor.

Common delay: starting evidence collection before scope and control ownership are clear. Define both first to avoid rework.

The core difference

ISO/IEC 27001 is an international standard for establishing and continually improving an information security management system. SOC 2 is an independent assurance report describing controls relevant to selected Trust Services Criteria.

Choose based on your market

• Consider SOC 2 when North American customers regularly request an assurance report during vendor reviews.
• Consider ISO 27001 when international recognition, formal certification, or a management-system approach is important.
• Consider both when customers span markets; one well-designed control environment can support substantial overlap.

Questions to answer first

• What evidence do current and target customers request?
• Do contracts or regulations name a specific framework?
• Is certification or an assurance report the expected deliverable?
• Can the organization sustain ongoing ownership, evidence, and improvement?

Decision principle: follow customer and contractual demand, then build a reusable control set rather than running two disconnected programs.

Six to eight weeks before fieldwork

• Confirm audit scope, criteria, systems, locations, and review period.
• Review the request list and assign an owner and due date to every item.
• Test key controls internally and open remediation items for exceptions.
• Validate that policies are approved, current, and consistent with actual practice.

Build evidence auditors can use

Evidence should identify the control, owner, date or period, population, and approval where applicable. Preserve system-generated timestamps and provide short context instead of unexplained screenshots.

During fieldwork

• Use one request tracker and one communication channel.
• Review submissions for completeness before sending them.
• Document clarifications and agree on deadlines for follow-up items.

Final check: sample your own evidence from an auditor's perspective. It should independently show who performed the control, what they reviewed, when it occurred, and how exceptions were handled.

Start with decisions, not a template

A useful risk program helps leaders decide what to mitigate, accept, transfer, or avoid. Define risk appetite, scoring criteria, ownership, and escalation thresholds before filling a register.

Minimum viable risk lifecycle

• Identify risks from assets, business processes, incidents, vendors, and change initiatives.
• Assess inherent likelihood and impact using consistent definitions.
• Evaluate existing controls and determine residual risk.
• Assign a treatment plan, accountable owner, target date, and required resources.
• Monitor indicators and review material risks on a defined cadence.

Report for action

Leadership reporting should emphasize changes in exposure, overdue treatments, control failures, and decisions needed. Avoid presenting a long register without priorities or business context.

Healthy program signal: risk information influences budgets, roadmaps, vendor decisions, and exception approvals—not only annual compliance activity.