The only AI GRC platform with quantum-safe cryptographic signatures on every AI decision — verified by NIST FIPS 204. None of the 12 Forrester Wave GRC vendors offer this. Here's how we stack up.
ML-DSA-65 (NIST FIPS 204) signatures on every AI decision audit receipt. Zero of 12 Forrester-evaluated vendors offer this. Your audit trail stays verifiable in 2040.
Forrester Leaders charge $30K–$500K/year. We charge $149–$499/month. Same core EU AI Act, ISO 42001, and NIST AI RMF coverage at a fraction of the cost.
Enterprise GRC implementations take 3–6 months. We're self-serve with instant signup and published pricing. Compliance-ready in days, not quarters.
Published May 2026 · 12 vendors evaluated · Authors: Paul McKay, Cody Scott
"AI is the loudest message in GRC, but today it's delivering minimal value. Customers must mind the gap between GRC AI capabilities and marketing hype."
"Continuous controls monitoring showed up as the single weakest criterion across all evaluated vendors — still too audit-focused."
"Too many platforms still require excessive manual updates. Too complex, unwieldy, and expensive for the function they perform today."
✅ QuantumAI Shield's response: AI-native from day one. API-first quantum-safe audit trail. Self-serve in minutes. 90% of compliance work automated.
Based on Forrester Wave™ GRC Platforms Q2 2026 report, vendor websites, and public pricing data as of May 31, 2026.
| Vendor | Forrester Tier | Founded | Annual Pricing | Self-Serve | EU AI Act | ISO 42001 | NIST AI RMF | AI-Native GRC | Post-Quantum | Time to Value | Key Weakness (Forrester) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
🛡️
QuantumAI Shield
quantumaishield.com
|
⭐ Challenger | 2025 | $1,788–$5,988/yr | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ML-DSA-65 |
2–3 weeks | Early stage — building client base & testimonials |
|
🛡️
QuantumAI Shield
quantumaishield.com
|
⭐ Challenger | 2025 | $1,788–$5,988/yr | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ ML-DSA-65 |
2–3 weeks | Early stage — building client base & testimonials |
| 🏆 Forrester Leaders | |||||||||||
Optro formerly AuditBoard |
Leader | 2014 | $30K–$80K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ | Weeks–months | Still catching up in business continuity; customers want stronger reporting analytics |
Diligent Diligent One Platform |
Leader | 2021 GRC | $50K–$500K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ | Months | Still integrating products into one platform; customers want more configurable reporting |
LogicGate Risk Cloud |
Leader | 2015 | $25K–$150K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ | Fast — weeks | CCM lags — audit evidence only, not control effectiveness. No native risk intelligence |
Vanta Agentic Trust Platform |
Leader | 2018 | $10K–$80K/yr | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | Fast — weeks | ERM lags — compliance-centric not risk-centric. Risk quantification not natively supported |
| 💪 Strong Performers | |||||||||||
ServiceNow Integrated Risk Mgmt |
Strong | 2004 | $150K–$500K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ✓ | ✗ | 3–6 months | Partner strategy falls short. Requires existing ServiceNow platform investment |
MetricStream MetricStream Euphrates |
Strong | 2001 | $50K–$200K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ | Months | Mixed UX feedback; compliance management needs natively provided regulatory content |
Workiva Workiva Platform |
Strong | 2008 | $75K–$250K+/yr | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | Complex — months | Compliance requires separate license for control mapping. Consumption-based pricing lags peers |
OneTrust OneTrust Platform |
Strong | 2016 | $50K–$300K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ✓ | ✗ | 3–6 months | Lags in CCM. Limited risk quantification. Weak ERM module. Dashboard/reporting issues |
Archer Archer 2025.10 + Evolv |
Strong | 2001 | $80K–$300K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ✓ | ✗ | Months | Dated UI, forms-driven. CCM uses third-party solution. Roadmap lags. High cost |
| ⚠️ Contenders | |||||||||||
IBM OpenPages OpenPages 9.1.3 + watsonx |
Contender | 2010 | $38K–$300K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ✓ | ✗ | 6+ months | Innovation lags market. AI agents limited. Complex navigation and pricing. Support issues |
Riskonnect Built on Salesforce |
Contender | 2007 | $50K–$200K+/yr | ✗ | ~ | ✗ | ~ | ~ | ✗ | Months | Salesforce dependency weakens UX and reporting. Steep learning curve for non-Salesforce orgs |
NAVEX NAVEX One |
Contender | 2012 GRC | Not public | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | Months | Roadmap below par. Cautious AI adoption. Forms-based interface. Limited reporting |
Enterprise GRC platforms were built for Fortune 500 budgets. We weren't.
Starting annual prices from public sources. Enterprise pricing varies. Sources: Vendr, G2, Capterra, vendor websites · May 2026
Every AI decision logged through QuantumAI Shield is signed with ML-DSA-65 (NIST FIPS 204) — the post-quantum digital signature standard finalized by NIST in 2024.
This means audit receipts signed today remain cryptographically verifiable in 2040, when quantum computers capable of breaking classical RSA/ECDSA signatures are expected to exist.
/api/ai/decisions → instant quantum-signed receipt
Start your free trial today. No sales call required. Compliance-ready in 2–3 weeks. The only platform that protects your audit trail against the quantum threat.
* Competitor pricing based on publicly available sources including Vendr, G2, Capterra, and vendor websites as of May 31, 2026. Actual pricing may vary. Forrester Wave™ data sourced from "The Forrester Wave™: Governance, Risk, And Compliance Platforms, Q2 2026" by Paul McKay and Cody Scott. Forrester does not endorse any vendor. All trademarks belong to their respective owners. QuantumAI Shield is not evaluated in the Forrester Wave report.