Fig vs Traditional GRC Platforms

Traditional GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) platforms are enterprise software systems designed to manage regulatory compliance, risk assessment, and governance processes. Examples include ServiceNow GRC, Archer (by RSA), MetricStream, and SAP GRC. These platforms are typically sold to large enterprises, require months of implementation, and cost between £30,000 and £500,000+ annually depending on scope and licensing.

Traditional GRC platforms were designed for single-entity enterprises managing their own internal compliance. They lack native multi-tenancy, meaning MSPs cannot efficiently manage dozens or hundreds of client environments from a single instance. The deployment timeline (3-12 months), cost structure, and administrative complexity make them impractical for managed service providers who need to onboard clients quickly and scale efficiently.

Fig is purpose-built for MSPs and SMBs, which means the product does not carry the overhead of enterprise customisation, consulting-heavy implementation, or legacy architecture. Fig automates evidence collection through native integrations instead of relying on manual processes. And Fig includes capabilities (vulnerability scanning, incident response, training) that traditional GRC platforms require you to purchase separately from third-party vendors.

Yes. Fig supports over 65 compliance frameworks including ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIS2, DORA, GDPR, CMMC, and Cyber Essentials. The platform scales from a single SMB to large MSP practices managing hundreds of client environments. The difference is not capability but approach: Fig achieves enterprise-grade compliance without enterprise-grade complexity or cost.

It means your Fig instance is fully configured and operational within 48 hours of starting onboarding. This includes connecting your integrations (RMM, PSA, identity providers, cloud platforms), configuring your first client environments, mapping compliance frameworks, and importing existing policies. By contrast, traditional GRC deployments involve months of requirements gathering, customisation, testing, and training before the platform is usable.

If your current GRC tool meets your needs and your organisation can justify the ongoing cost and administrative overhead, there may not be an immediate reason to switch. However, if you find that your GRC tool requires significant manual effort, does not support multi-tenancy for client management, lacks built-in vulnerability scanning or incident response, or costs more than the value it delivers, Fig is worth evaluating as a modern alternative.