AuditBoard Reviews

I used AuditBoard primarily for risk assessment questionnaires in a very premature risk environment. I also have experience with IBM OpenPages, mostly for operational risk to track issues, to look at risks and controls.

The collaboration within my team had not yet significantly changed since implementing AuditBoard, as it was just starting with the risk assessment. There was positive feedback on its ease of use.

For AuditBoard, the simple workflow made it very easy to code with the group. It received good feedback on its appearance and ease of use. For IBM OpenPages, the ease of use for businesses who are not risk savvy and its flexibility was valuable.

AuditBoard is overly simple in some instances and there needs to be flexibility to make it more robust. For IBM OpenPages, the reporting can be more robust as the summary report on each of the modules is a little flat.

I used AuditBoard for less than a year. I have used OpenPages for about five years.

I am not sure about the stability, as I didn't get too deep into AuditBoard.

I am not sure about the scalability of AuditBoard, as I did not get too deep into it.

I did not have the opportunity to deal with customer service or support for AuditBoard.

I have used ServiceNow and Archer prior to AuditBoard. I also used OpenPages in the past.

The initial setup for AuditBoard was easy and straightforward. For OpenPages, if requirements are straightforward, the setup process is straightforward.

Two risk folks were involved with the deployment of AuditBoard in a very premature risk organization with around ten users.

I've used AuditBoard, ServiceNow, Archer, OpenPages, and other GRC tools.

AuditBoard is recommended for smaller companies, particularly for its risk assessment module, which is simple and easy to use.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We mainly use the SOXHUB module. AuditBoard has several solutions for governance, internal audit, and other categories, but we primarily use SOXHUB for our SOX program. As a public company listed in the US stock market, we need to comply with the SOX Act and run several internal control tests throughout the year.

AuditBoard manages everything for us, from testing to work papers, documentation, risk and control matrix, PPC requests, and action plans for control issues.

I can do everything in AuditBoard, including requesting documentation, using it as a repository to keep everything retained in the platform, and even working on Excel files within the platform. It's a great tool that notifies control owners, and I can upload everything on this platform.

It's great software, and I've been using it since I started working for my current company three years ago. AuditBoard is the future for each company.

The most spectacular feature I have is to have all the documentation within the platform. I can also request documents and send remediation and action plans via the platform. Generally, it manages everything in terms of the testing and audit phases.

Before AuditBoard, I used to do everything in Excel files and have the documentation on my computer. When you have documentation on your computer, you risk losing your files if the computer is damaged or something happens to the hardware. But with AuditBoard, everything is maintained in the cloud. So even if your computer is damaged, you can still access your files in the cloud.

Overall, it's easy-to-use and advanced software. You can manage all the testing phases, perform your testing, place comments, and provide your final opinion assessments using the platform.

The layout for the end user could be improved for the control owners and people from whom I request information. If you have a good knowledge of internal auditing, you know there are internal controls and owners for these controls. So, as an auditor, I'm the end user for all the support, but I have my clients, which are the business areas, and I have many control owners. Therefore, the layout of the system could be simplified to be more user-friendly and easy for them.

AuditBoard can be more user-friendly, but not for me as an auditor, but for them as the end user (the people I'm auditing). These are the owners, shareholders, or people who manage the system only to provide documentation or receive the action plan.

I would like to see more concise auditing results in the next release. For example, currently, there is a test that we have to do manually. When we close out the testing in the SOX program, we need to gather all the results for the auditor and then make a presentation and a communication letter for the owners, mainly the CFO and the audit committee.

I would appreciate a way to get the output of the auditing results more concise and as a presentation or final report. For example, the platform could gather the results from each location because we have over 500 controls to test and put them in a single document or, you know, in a consolidated report. Since I work for a company worldwide, we have locations worldwide and in different countries, each of which we have controls to test.

It would help us avoid this menial task at the end of the project. This new feature could give a concise or aggregated report output, a final report. It would enhance the report output layout and make it easier to manage and present the results to the stakeholders.

I've been using AuditBoard since I joined the company in March 2020, so it has been three years. I use the latest version because we timely update it.

It's a stable product. Over the three years, I've only experienced two or three instances of instability. Once a year, if you put it on average. Moreover, the support team gets it resolved quickly.

It is a scalable solution. Overall, around 200-300 people are using AuditBoard in our company. Mostly, we have many auditors who use the product daily, either internally or externally.

The support from AuditBoard is really great, and we get support from them anytime we need it. They also provide someone to do walk-throughs with us to set everything up correctly.

Positive

The main reason was to have everything managed in one solution, especially the testing process in our SOX program. AuditBoard is a relatively new solution; we didn't have a solution like that five or six years ago. It makes managing the SOX program and testing much more manageable.

It was to make it more manageable and an easy solution for everyone.

The initial setup was easy. It wasn't a big deal to implement and have our control metrics uploaded to the auditor.

I would definitely recommend using AuditBoard. As an internal auditor, I sometimes have contact with other consulting and auditing firms. When we speak about AuditBoard, they are really impressed by how great this solution is, especially in Brazil, where it could be more popular. But it's worth using this platform, and everybody gets impressed when I tell them about the features and the solution itself.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. It makes my life as an auditor easy because I can manage all the documentation and testing phases and organize my assessment, opinion, and work papers all in one place. However, I don't give it a ten because they could improve how they gather results from all instances to have a better report layout. But everything else, like adding users, internal controls and risks information, and workstream notification, is great. My only suggestion is to have a better layout when exporting the final results. That's why I give it an eight.

AuditBoard is user-friendly, highly intuitive, and simple to use. Additionally, the most significant concern for any user is avoiding accidental damage to the system. However, the system is very adaptable, so users need not worry about causing any damage.

The advantages of the AuditBoard system are diverse, including the ability to manage remote resources efficiently. For instance, I had a few team members working in Japan, while another couple of resources were in South Carolina, and I was based in Florida. Nevertheless, I could effortlessly access the system, monitor their progress, provide feedback, and engage in seamless communication regarding their workflow.

The most significant feature of AuditBoard is its community tools. It provides an internal communication platform that enables users to communicate within the system rather than relying on external tools such as Outlook or Microsoft products. By communicating within the system, all interactions are centralized and accessible, promoting a streamlined workflow.

This system offers a robust audit trail that preserves all notes and works as long as the user maintains their product membership. Moreover, email alerts are linked directly to the user's working box, provided their working emails are integrated with the system. This feature guarantees that users can easily access critical notifications and alerts.

Furthermore, in the event that someone sends a message within the tool while a user is not logged in, the user will receive a notification via their working email, informing them that there is a message or request waiting for them within the application.

AuditBoard could benefit from the addition of video capabilities, although it is not a necessity. Small companies that cannot afford licenses for Microsoft Teams or Zoom would benefit greatly from this feature, as it would enhance the communication process.

Another area for improvement is the integration of different modules within the tool. Currently, they are marketed separately, but it would be beneficial to have at least two or three solutions integrated into the system. This would simplify the purchasing process for users and enhance the overall functionality of the AuditBoard system. 

The system has the capability to communicate through emails or messages, but it currently lacks video or audio communication features. Integrating Microsoft Teams or Zoom within the tool would be a great addition as it would allow for communication to occur within the system and ensure that it is all stored in one place. However, it is important to note that with Microsoft Teams, unless specified otherwise, conversations are automatically deleted after sixty to ninety days. This could be problematic for auditors, as documentation is essential. By having conversations within the tool, they become part of the documentation and are preserved for future reference. Using Zoom or Microsoft Teams to collect notes and communicate would be beneficial, as it allows for various forms of communication, such as video chats or messages. However, currently, AuditBoard does not offer these features.

I have used AuditBoard for approximately three years.

We never experienced any downtime. The server was consistently up and the tool was always available when we needed it.

I rate the scalability of AuditBoard a nine out of ten.

The solution scales well.

We have approximately 120 users using the solution in my organization.

I rate the scalability of AuditBoard a ten out of ten.

AuditBoard's support is highly responsive. They promptly address our queries and when they encounter questions they cannot answer, they involve additional experts in conference calls to provide solutions. They maintain continuous communication with us through phone calls and emails, even after implementing the solutions, to ensure stability and identify areas for improvement. This level of customer care and product support speaks volumes about their dedication to their customers.

I rate the support of AuditBoard a seven out of ten.

Positive

Before transitioning to AuditBoard, I relied on Microsoft Excel. The decision to switch was driven by the desire to avoid errors, duplication of effort, data and documentation loss, and frustration associated with using SharePoint. In times like these, investing in a comprehensive solution like AuditBoard is a wise choice.

In contrast, with Microsoft Excel, it can be mentally challenging to remember the location of a specific worksheet after two or three years. However, with AuditBoard, you simply select the year, location, and process, and all relevant documentation is accessible in one place. This includes who completed the work, when it was done, how it was done, and any uploaded documentation, support, conclusions, review notes, and messages. It was an easy decision because AuditBoard was exactly what we were looking for.

The implementation of AuditBoard can be somewhat challenging due to its many components. While the customer service department is helpful and provides a good implementation experience, some clients may not be knowledgeable about how to create or set up the tool. This can result in auditors going back and forth with the AuditBoard team to ensure a satisfactory implementation. However, the AuditBoard team is patient and works with us until we are happy with the final product.

The implementation time can vary depending on the complexity of the project. In our case, it took us around 180 days to complete the implementation and post-sales service. While it's possible to finish in 90 days or less, there are many factors that come into play and can cause delays. In our experience, we found that it takes about six months to make all the necessary adjustments and be completely satisfied with the implementation.

I rate the initial setup of AuditBoard a seven out of ten.

Everything was kept in-house. This can be beneficial as long as the IT team is competent and capable of handling any issues that arise.

There were three of us involved in the process: two people working on uploading the data into the submission tool provided by AuditBoard, and myself overseeing the implementation process.

The return on investment for this tool is exceptionally high, particularly when considering the time saved by auditors, control owners, and process owners. We were able to reduce the processing time by an impressive 40 percent, which becomes even more significant when factoring in the hours spent on Excel per month by our team of around 120 people. Assuming an average hourly rate of $50, this equates to roughly $50,000 per month. However, with the 40 percent reduction in processing time, employees are now able to focus on other important tasks, leading to a decrease in cost per person. This translates to a return of $20,000, which means that the cost of the tool, which is $53,000 per year, can be recouped in just a few months, based solely on the use of the tool for one specific task - the Quality Control questionnaire, which is mandatory for our company. This astounding return on investment is not even considering other tasks such as testing, documentation, or report preparation. It is clear that the tool offers excellent value for money.

I collaborate with the contracts and conducted negotiations with AuditBoard. The contract terms are quite reasonable and offer good value for money, but there may be room for improvement. Perhaps a loyalty program could be implemented to reward long-term customers with savings. However, it is uncertain why they charge based on the number of controls. For instance, if you have a hundred controls as a basic package, you are only able to test that number within their platform. Additional controls beyond this number would incur extra charges, which was a surprise to us. We negotiated to reduce the number of controls, but this was not an ideal solution. Consistent pricing without any unexpected charges is crucial for our CFO's approval, and this model of charging for controls beyond a certain threshold was unexpected and the only weakness I perceived during the pricing negotiation process.

If you exceed the maximum number of controls allowed on the platform, you will be charged extra for additional sets of controls. This came as a surprise to us at first, and we negotiated to reduce the number of controls to be close to the maximum allowed. However, we don't want to have this model where we are charged for exceeding a certain threshold. It's difficult to negotiate and sell the solution to the CFO, so once it's approved, we want consistent pricing with no surprises. This was the only weakness we saw in the pricing negotiation regarding the manual controls that can be tested.

I rate the price of AuditBoard a five out of ten.

I highly recommend this tool as the price is reasonable. However, consistent pricing is important, and having a loyalty program that rewards long-term customers with lower prices would be a great addition.

We considered other options, such as Fortiva, and even acquired Workiva. However, at that time, three years ago, Workiva was mainly a financial reporting tool, which was great for the consolidation team. It was intuitive and well-liked. But when they began promoting it as an internal audit or Sarbanes-Oxley tool, it was still in development and did not meet our expectations. We used both companies for financial reporting and internal controls/audits.

Individuals or organizations considering implementing AuditBoard should prepare themselves to ensure that their risk control matrices are updated and that their data is aligned with the template. They should also have a clear vision of what they want to achieve, as this tool is highly scalable and flexible in terms of implementation. Transitioning from an Excel-based system may pose some challenges, as it did for our organization, but once we received guidance on how to effectively replicate our existing system in AuditBoard, the benefits became apparent. It is important for companies to be open-minded and recognize that there may be some initial heavy lifting required, but the payoff in terms of the tool's performance is well worth it.

I rate AuditBoard a nine out of ten.

My team primarily uses AuditBoard for SOX compliance. Our main function is to test and document our various systems of risk and controls. In addition, our internal audit team has also started using the platform. However, I am not familiar with the specifics of their usage of the solution. We also list our general IT controls within AuditBoard. I am trying to recall if there are any other platforms we use within AuditBoard since our primary focus is on SOX compliance.

The reporting tool within AuditBoard is probably the one that I use the most. It is built based on the data points that we, at our company, have put into it in terms of different data points that we collect in our documentation and testing. So, it does a good job of pulling information from all of our documentation. So, it is mainly used for reporting purposes.

An example of the benefits we have experienced from working with AuditBoard is that, as we approach the end of our second cycle utilizing AuditBoard's archival and roll forward process, we have been able to maintain our documentation year-over-year. This has allowed us to refer our previous year's documentation work in subsequent years. This feature has been extremely helpful for our team.

We have been able to build on this process from year one to year two. Now, as we enter year three with a doubled team size, new team members can refer to the prior year's testing documentation for reference as they begin to test the controls for the current year. So, the archive and roll forward process has been extremely beneficial.

The reporting tool is user-friendly and makes gathering the information I want easy. It's customizable every time I create a report, and I can also save reports as I work through them. I create weekly summaries, so I have various reports, including stock reports I've created for myself, that I can rerun whenever I want to quickly.

The reporting tool is very helpful in what I do, as it allows me to gather information to track progress and see anything outstanding. It also helps me inform various testers on what is happening at the current stage of progress, as we have seven people on our team. Overall, the reporting feature of this tool is very helpful.

A handful of things in the solution need to be improved. One of them is better communication of updates to the system or tool itself. Currently, we don't receive any emails about updates, and it's up to the users to find them on the community page of AuditBoard. It would be helpful if we received more direct communication about upcoming changes so we could stay informed.

One thing that we, as a team, have noticed is that as we review documentation, there's a comments piece within the actual control itself. We can leave comments as we are reviewing, but the comments don't allow us to pinpoint exactly where we are referencing when we are making a comment. So, for example, there are various sections within the documentation where there's data that's input. Still, if we want to call out a specific section, we have to spell it out ourselves in the comment rather than being able to pinpoint it directly. It's kind of like in Excel, where one can highlight the cell and leave a comment within the cell right there, but within AuditBoard, we have to specifically call out this section in our own words as we are typing the comment. It would be great if this could be improved.

I would like to see more inclusive tools available within the AuditBoard system. Currently, it is more like an "à la carte" basis, meaning that users have to add and subtract various different modules to the tool. For instance, there's a risk module that we would love to have, but it's an additional cost. Even though we are already super users, or whatever it's called, paying for the best access to the tool, some modules are still left out. So, it would be nice if the tool was more inclusive of their different modules. Besides that, it has been a very helpful tool for us.

In my current role, we adopted AuditBoard approximately three months after our company went public in January 2021. Therefore, we began using AuditBoard around April 2021 and have been utilizing this platform for nearly two years. In our company, we are still using the solution.

For the most part, we have only experienced a few issues with AuditBoard. These issues were primarily due to a lack of communication about updates. In some cases, updates were made to the solution without informing us, which left us in the dark about the changes and how they might affect our work. However, I can count how many times this has happened on just one of my hands. Besides that, the product is very stable, and we haven't had many issues with the solution.

The solution is scalable. Our current control framework is where it will be, and I don't anticipate it getting any larger. However, the tool itself seems to be very scalable.

In our company, if we look at the users and roles currently listed in our tool, we have a total of 265. However, some of these may be owners of controls or involved in the documentation process and may not actually be actively using the tool itself. So, if we want to get a more accurate number of people who are actually using the tool, I would estimate it to be closer to 250.

We have contacted technical support on multiple occasions for general questions and inquiries. There is a tool available where we can use the chat function, which recommends articles for us to read in case our question has already been addressed. Alternatively, we can submit a ticket to a support representative who will investigate our issue or question and email us back with a solution or response.

In my experience, this process has been quite successful. However, there have been instances where some team members faced communication issues when changes were made to our system without us being informed. In such cases, when we reached out to the technical support team for answers, we had to wait for a response for up to a month. Nonetheless, such occurrences are rare.

I have not used any other solutions similar to AuditBoard. AuditBoard is the tool we adopted when we went public, and we have been using it in our company ever since.

I wasn't directly involved in the initial setup and deployment of the project. A smaller team with various leaders took care of the deployment process. I can't provide too much detail about the steps taken during the setup and deployment phase.

Also, we're not responsible for handling any maintenance tasks related to AuditBoard. The AuditBoard team themselves handles those tasks. Our involvement is limited to our day-to-day use of the software, specifically when we need to update our own testing documentation. However, when it comes to maintaining the program or software itself, we don't do anything outside of our normal activities.

When we were deploying the solution, we decided to handle everything in-house. A former leader, who is no longer with the company, had helped with the deployment and initial setup of AuditBoard. He could do the solution's setup because he had used the software before in one of his previous jobs. So, he was the one who suggested that we use AuditBoard. Therefore, we didn't need help from a third party to assist us with the setup.

I don't have any specific figures or numbers regarding the return on investment from working with AuditBoard. Considering the solution's return on investment, it has been extremely helpful since we were doing a lot of documentation. Previously, in our company, we were using an Excel sheet which made things quite messy. However, with AuditBoard, we now have a repository of information in one location, making it easy to search for different things. Also, the reporting and dashboard features have been extremely helpful. Overall, I would say that the return on investment has been incredible.

We did not evaluate any other options before choosing AuditBoard. We heavily considered it based on a referral from a former employee who had used it in the past. So I think that AuditBoard was our clear favorite, based on the reference we received.

Even though I don't know if this answers your question regarding the deployment model we use for the solution, AuditBoard is a software and a web-based tool. Usually, we access it by logging in through our web browser.

If you plan to use AuditBoard, contact your representative and establish clear and regular communication with them. When in our company, we started using AuditBoard, we waited about a year before setting up quarterly calls with our representative. This helped us to offer feedback and stay informed about any updates or changes to the platform. I recommend setting up this line of communication from the beginning so that you have someone to rely on for any questions you may have. Don't just rely on the ticket system or other means of communication. Establish a good relationship with your representative so that you can get the most out of your experience with AuditBoard. That's my one piece of advice.

Since the solution is not bad at all, and there is definitely room for improvement. Also, since, for us, at our company, it gets the job done, and we enjoy using it, I rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I utilized AuditBoard for conducting internal audits and related tasks. I would upload the soft controls onto the AuditBoard platform and use it to create work papers and similar items.

The most valuable feature of AuditBoard is its ability to facilitate the editing of work papers in a seamless and efficient manner. This is achieved through a built-in tool that allows for real-time editing without the need for downloading the working paper. This feature has proven to be incredibly time-saving for me as it eliminates the step of having to download the file and make changes, instead providing an easy-to-access "edit work paper" option. Overall, this feature has greatly improved my experience with AuditBoard and has been a significant contributor to its success in my opinion.

AuditBoard has the potential for improvement in a few key areas. Firstly, I have experienced instances where the platform has experienced technical issues and ceased to function effectively. Additionally, the editing tools provided within the platform can be slow and laggy, particularly when trying to access and edit important documents. This can be a hindrance to my workflow and efficiency. To address these issues, they should begin by improving the speed and reliability of the platform, as well as enhancing the search engine to make it easier to find specific controls and documents within the platform.

The lagging issue was related to the stability and functionality of the search engine. It seems some minor adjustments were necessary to enhance the overall experience and allow for a clearer distinction between the controls being used. This problem also seemed to arise when attempting to upload external files or engage in other similar activities.

After careful contemplation, having a centralized storage system for all work-related documents would be incredibly advantageous. This could be in the form of folders or an online cloud that is easily accessible through the AuditBoard website. This would eliminate the need for me to store these important documents on my personal computer or the need to access them through my desktop. Having everything in one centralized location would not only make my life easier, but it would also increase productivity and efficiency in my work. 

I have been using AuditBoard for approximately two months.

The number of individuals within the company utilizing AuditBoard was limited to the internal audit department alone. My estimation is that approximately 12 individuals within this department had access to the tool. I am unsure if the accounting department had any access to AuditBoard, as it is highly probable that they did not.

I have had the need to reach out to AuditBoard's technical support team for assistance in the past. There was a specific instance when the server was down and as a result, the AuditBoard application was not functioning properly. I contacted the IT support team at my company and I am unsure if the issue was with AuditBoard or if all of the applications were impacted by the server issue. Nonetheless, I have only had to call for support once in my time using AuditBoard, which spans approximately two and a half months.

I rate the support from AuditBoard a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have not tried other tools, but I am confident that having a single tool that can be utilized across multiple companies would make the learning process much more efficient and reduce the amount of time required to adapt to a new tool.

The initial setup process was not a challenging experience at all. It was incredibly straightforward and simple. I was provided with a unique login identification and password, and after accessing the website, everything was done effortlessly and fell into place. The ease of the setup was a great aspect, and I found it to be a very positive experience.

AuditBoard serves as an effective control mechanism, however, its market appeal is rather narrow. Its usage is only necessary for those individuals who work in the auditing field. Unless one holds the profession of an auditor, there is no real need for AuditBoard.

It would be highly desirable to see AuditBoard adopted by other firms that engage in auditing activities. This would result in a more streamlined and simplified experience for users. I prefer this tool over any alternative options.

I highly recommend utilizing this application. It would be beneficial to seek the assistance of someone who has previously utilized the tool, as they would be able to provide a detailed explanation of how it functions in a relatively short amount of time. Furthermore, the application has a user-friendly interface and is quite simple to comprehend, making the learning process effortless.

I rate AuditBoard a nine out of ten.

Our internal audit department uses the SOXHub and OpsAudit modules. We are a Fortune 500 company with approximately 15 internal auditors. Additionally, we have co-sourced with external consultants for some of our SOX testing and on large integration projects when we have acquired other companies. 

We have given AuditBoard access to external consultants when we have these types of co-source arrangements. We use SOXHub to maintain all controls in our SOX environment, and OpsAudit is utilized for every operational audit that we perform.

AuditBoard is very user-friendly compared to other audit management software I have used in the past. 

It is easy to exchange documents and communicate with the auditee through the software. Additionally, the workflows for reviewing workpapers and remediating issues are easy to use. 

There are a lot of reporting capabilities and dashboards in AuditBoard to track the department's testing status. 

What also makes AuditBoard a great tool is that it is configurable, and you can make it fit the needs of your internal audit department. 

A couple of features that I find most valuable:

1. PBC requests - The workflow makes it easy to request documents from the auditee. When the documents are uploaded, the auditor is notified through email, and the documents are automatically moved to the support folders when the PBC request is closed. 

2. Workpaper review - When the workpaper is finished and ready for review, the reviewer will get an email notification. If they have any review comments, they can post them in AuditBoard and even send the workpaper back to the tester. The tester gets an email notification in both of these instances. 

The only area that I can think of that could be improved is the survey function of AuditBoard. It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole. 

We considered using the surveys for our fraud risk assessment. However, the results from the surveys could not be easily compiled. I cannot think of any other ways the product could be improved. 

The different modules of AuditBoard all seem to work well together. Our department has even explored the RiskOversight module that would assist in our annual risk assessments. 

I've used the solution for three years.

We also used TeamMate. It was not easy to use.

In terms of pricing, I am not involved in the product at this level.

We did not evaluate other options. 

We have limited access, where we can do the risk assessment, check the evidence, and, if there are any deviations, we can put that remark in a comment. The reviewer will check that from their end. 

In AuditBoard, companies have their own controls. According to ISO 27,001, in the risk assessment part, for example, for HR security, they have onboarding and offboarding. You can figure out how many employees joining and leaving within a month. Once the month is complete, HR uploads the data on AuditBoard, and we will rectify that. We will see how many employees leave the organization during that month. We will cross-verify that active directory user list, where we can compile all the active users and disabled users. If any deviation arises during that risk assessment, we remark in AuditBoard. This remark will automatically notify that respective team member via email. They will update the deviation accordingly. This is the flow of AuditBoard. 

There are lots of features. We like the reviewer and auditor, where they support you if you want to upload evidence. At the same time the reviewer or auditor can also put their remark. 

The solution is user-friendly. It's easy to set up.

You can easily find out how to proceed for reassessment, how to upload that evidence, and how you can put in a remark. Everything is a single console where you can easily track what you need.

It's stable.

The product is scalable. 

They provide a demo to customers to allow them to explore the tools.

Everything is there, and I have no disadvantage to note as of now.

I've been using the solution for one year.

It is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We can scale the solution.

Right now, ten team members are using the solution. It is a governance team.

We've never contacted technical support. The team who installed it would be the people who would reach out if they came across issues. I wouldn't necessarily even reach out to them.

I'm not sure if a different solution was used previously.

The solution is easy to set up and very straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

I'm not sure how long it takes to deploy the solution. A different team manages the process.

I'm not sure about the exact cost of the solution.

We're customers and end-users. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution we are using. 

I'd recommend the solution. It is very user-friendly. Of course, it depends on the budget a company has.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

AuditBoard is a tool for SOX auditing that holds your narratives or flowcharts. You can create control descriptions for your clients and narrative checks for their SOX testing. AuditBoard stores everything online, so you can go back to clients and review the information.  

AuditBoard keeps track of all the test documents online, so everything is there when you're doing interim walkthroughs or quarterly and year-end audits. If we identify any problems, we create an issue in AuditBoard and notify the client. The client can review the matter, and we will have a meeting to decide how to remedy it.

In the old days, we had to go to the client's place and make a PDF copy of the testing sheets, then upload them to our database. We had a bunch of PDF, Excel files, and various other documents stored in directories. There is always a risk that you might lose something or a file could get corrupted. 

The most valuable feature is that everybody can use the same tool. You can give a person permission to use AuditBoard and define their access to the Audit Table. For example, we can allow external auditors or clients to review our completed tests. The clients are attached to specific tests that happen regularly, like inventory counts and asset counts. Debt compliance is only done once annually.

I have used AuditBoard for four years.

AuditBoard is highly stable. It has gone down a few times in the past four years. We contact technical support when that happens, and they usually get us back up in an hour or two.

I rate AuditBoard IT support 10 out of 10. Their customer support is fantastic. 

Positive

We've had various products before, but AuditBoard is so much more advanced. The platform is built by auditors and accountants.

The initial setup is somewhat difficult because it has multiple pieces that need to be stitched together. You have to integrate it with the business unit you want to test if you want to go down from the corporate level to the operational level. 

I believe the license is based on the number of key controls that will be tested regularly. You can also pay extra for additional modules, like risk testing and operational audits, etc. 

I rate AuditBoard 10 out of 10. If you're doing SOX testing, it's the most advanced tool you can buy. You can pay extra for more functionality like online risk testing and operational audits. 

My primary use case is for the audit process. AuditBoard has all the audit steps, including documentation, archiving, and tracking the progress of audits. It is an end-to-end tool for our audit.

It is very user-friendly. I have used other or similar solutions in the past, but it is the easiest to use. It allows me to do many things with self-service and allows me to customize the settings based on my needs. Its user interface is good.

Despite being user-friendly, sometimes it is not easy to find a feature, toggle, or make changes in the system. I need to access multiple setups to make the change in the system, and it needs some improvements in this area.

AuditBoard uses templates and automatic reporting; it would be better if they improve data space and the feature in terms of automated reporting.

I have been using AuditBoard for a year and a half, and I have been using the latest version because it automatically updates.

It is a fully stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The support team was always on time and had a quick response time. Although, it requires one or two interactions to get things working on their platform.

It was a smooth process when we implemented the solution and tried to implement the historical data. Regardless, the support I received was responsive.

Positive

It is easy. But when we implemented it, it was not straightforward because we were learning as we were implementing it. As we started using the solution more, it became easy, but it was not super straightforward.

I would rate it a nine on a scale of one to ten, where ten is easy to set up, and one is super difficult.

The initial setup took around two and a half months, from the first meeting to implementation.

It depends on the company's size; it is definitely worth the money.

I have used two other solutions related to audit, and AuditBoard is the best of all. It is very user-friendly and allows me to do self-service. The overall support team is good. If I delete something accidentally, I can recover it easily.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We're documenting and uploading using AuditBoard. I transfer the documents from Microsoft Excel and upload them to the reports. I also do some auditing on the documents. There is a process where we have to request information from other people in the network, so we also use AuditBoard as a way to send document requests.

The most valuable feature is the well-documented instruction. The information helps us learn about the solution.

There is a feature that allows us to simply exit the window if we make a mistake and when we go back in the information reverts back to the last saved. However, if we want to keep the changes and don't save them, we might have to do the work over again.

After sending out a request to my network for documents, it would be great to have a receipt that shows who received the request and who did not. This would help me ensure that I am sending requests to the correct people. Currently, there is no way to know this information.

I have used the solution for three months.

AuditBoard has only had issues with stability when the internet connection caused Alibaba to fail to save our progress. However, the best way to handle this situation is to just navigate away from the program and then come back to it later. The solution is as stable as the internet connection we are using.

The initial setup was straightforward and was done on my company laptop. 

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

Users of AuditBoard should constantly save their work.