AuditBoard vs IBM OpenPages comparison

AuditBoard and IBM are both solutions in the GRC category. AuditBoard is ranked #6 with an average rating of 8.5, while IBM is ranked #7 with an average rating of 7.8. AuditBoard holds a 7.9% mindshare in G, compared to IBM’s 5.5% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of AuditBoard users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 71% of IBM users who would recommend it.

AuditBoard

Read 12 AuditBoard reviews

1,542 Views
799 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

IBM OpenPages

Read 8 IBM OpenPages reviews

1,172 Views
692 Comparison Views

71% willing to recommend

AuditBoard

IBM OpenPages

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 4, 2025

IBM OpenPages and AuditBoard compete in the GRC software market, both offering unique advantages. AuditBoard generally prevails due to its comprehensive feature set, despite IBM OpenPages providing better pricing and support feedback.

Features: IBM OpenPages offers strong risk management capabilities, scalable solutions for large enterprises, and integrated drag-and-drop reporting tools. AuditBoard provides intuitive compliance tools, a unified platform for seamless audit and risk team communication, and real-time editing capabilities for work papers.

Room for Improvement: IBM OpenPages could benefit from simplified deployment, more intuitive user interfaces, and enhanced compliance tools. AuditBoard might improve with increased out-of-the-box reports, expanded integration options, and more robust risk management features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM OpenPages demands more complex deployment with extended integration time but offers thorough post-setup support. AuditBoard features a streamlined deployment model for quicker implementation with responsive customer service throughout the process.

Pricing and ROI: IBM OpenPages involves higher initial setup costs primarily targeting enterprises, with slower ROI realization. Despite its higher upfront expense, AuditBoard offers quicker ROI through its efficient deployment and comprehensive tools, leading to reduced operational disturbances.

To learn more, read our detailed AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages Report (Updated: March 2025).

Buyer's Guide

AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 845,406 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

AuditBoard

Ranking in GRC

6th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

IT Vendor Risk Management (5th)

IBM OpenPages

Ranking in GRC

7th

Average Rating

7.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

IT Governance (2nd)

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the GRC category, the mindshare of AuditBoard is 7.9%, up from 5.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM OpenPages is 5.5%, up from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

GRC

Featured Reviews

Gopichand Rajbhar

IT GRC Manager at Capgemini

User-friendly, simple to implement, and has lots of features

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.

Read full review

Badri Anand Santhanam

Senior Risk Advisory Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Enhancing operational risk management and reporting capabilities with insightful dashboards and automated features

IBM OpenPages offers strong reporting capabilities with Cognos integration, providing standard tabular reports, various charts, and powerful dashboards for different lines of defense. It caters to the first line managing risks and controls, the second line of SMEs providing oversight, and the independent audit function with an internal audit management module. The solution is more intuitive and task-based, allowing better involvement of the risk function across different lines of defense. The automated features translate into reporting capabilities, and data can be easily extracted and downloaded in different formats.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"In AuditBoard, there are all the audit steps, including documentation, archiving, and tracking the progress of audits."

"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."

"There are lots of features."

"I find the most significant elements of this solution are the out-of-the-box reporting, the ease of workflow, workflow management, and the ease of managing our audit process."

"AuditBoard has several solutions for governance, internal audit, and other categories."

"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."

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

More AuditBoard pros

"Everything about IBM OpenPages is valuable, particularly when compared to other solutions in the market like MetricStream, from which we switched due to its feasibility, user-friendliness, and performance."

"The ability to keep a record of internal incidents in the company, and also the monitoring of Key Indicators."

"The content, reporting, and workflow features stand out as the most valuable aspects."

"IBM OpenPages saves time in my work as a developer."

"IBM OpenPages provides time savings in recording risk management components."

"The most valuable features are the workflow engine, calculations, and security rules."

Cons

"They should improve the solution's test sheets feature for ease of use."

"AuditBoard is overly simple in some instances and there needs to be flexibility to make it more robust."

"The layout for the end user could be improved."

"It is not easy to analyze the results of a survey as a whole."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Some of that flexibility could be enhanced. When comparing Archer and TeamMate+, there is a little more open-ended in terms of certain of our audit processes and procedures. And there is significantly greater freedom in creating ad hoc audit processes and procedures, whereas AuditBoard is a little more limiting in this regard."

More AuditBoard cons

"I believe there's room for improvement in establishing connections with external information."

"IBM OpenPages could improve by adding more conditions to workflows, as some existing conditions might not work and can produce errors."

"It would be useful to have more out-of-the-box functionality, especially triggers and calculations."

"IBM OpenPages needs improvement in its UI. Currently, it is difficult to see the relationships (associations/parents) between all items unless you click on the item itself."

"IBM needs to work on pricing for organizations with around 100 users, as the licensing model is not competitive enough for SMEs."

"Some self-relationships are not available in OpenPages' relationship model."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"Pricing is variable, like with any technology, and is determined by how hard you wish to negotiate. You can get to a price you're willing to pay if you're willing to negotiate aggressively."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which GRC solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

28%

Computer Software Company

Healthcare Company

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AuditBoard?

It consolidates the E2E process in one single solution, and in a very user friendly environment.

See all answers

What needs improvement with AuditBoard?

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 modu...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for AuditBoard?

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 ...

See all answers

What do you like most about IBM OpenPages?

The product’s interface is very intuitive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM OpenPages?

IBM OpenPages could improve by adding more conditions to workflows, as some existing conditions might not work and can produce errors. Additionally, although there are risk assessment tools, I do n...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM OpenPages?

I primarily use IBM OpenPages ( /products/ibm-openpages-reviews ) for compliance and audit programs.

See all answers

Comparisons

Workiva Wdesk vs AuditBoard

Compared 41% of the time

RSA Archer vs AuditBoard

Compared 24% of the time

OneTrust GRC vs AuditBoard

Compared 23% of the time

LogicGate vs AuditBoard

Compared 7% of the time

ServiceNow Vendor Risk Management vs AuditBoard

Compared 6% of the time

More AuditBoard Competitors

RSA Archer vs IBM OpenPages

Compared 50% of the time

MetricStream vs IBM OpenPages

Compared 28% of the time

OneTrust GRC vs IBM OpenPages

Compared 10% of the time

SAS Enterprise GRC vs IBM OpenPages

Compared 7% of the time

SAP BusinessObjects GRC vs IBM OpenPages

Compared 5% of the time

More IBM OpenPages Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

AuditBoard

March 2025

Download AuditBoard product report

Buyer's Guide

GRC

March 2025

Download IBM OpenPages product report

Also Known As

No data available

OpenPages

Overview

AuditBoard is the leading cloud-based platform transforming audit, risk, and compliance management. More than 35% of the Fortune 500 leverage AuditBoard to move their businesses forward with greater clarity and agility. AuditBoard is top-rated by customers on G2, Capterra, and Gartner Peer Insights, and was recently ranked for the fourth year in a row as one of the fastest-growing technology companies in North America by Deloitte. To learn more, visit: AuditBoard.com.

AuditBoard

Enables customers to manage risk and compliance initiatives across the enterprise, helping businesses to reduce loss, improve decision-making about resource allocation, and optimize business performance.

IBM

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Nationwide, Process Innovation AG, OSRAM Licht AG, Dep‹sito Central de Valores (DCV), Delta Lloyd Group, Unum

Buyer's Guide

AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages

March 2025

Free Report: AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages

Find out what your peers are saying about AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our AuditBoard vs. IBM OpenPages report.

See our list of best GRC vendors.

We monitor all GRC reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.