Comparison
Traditional GRC vs Canarie
GRC platforms like Archer, ServiceNow, and LogicGate are excellent for policy management, risk assessment, and audit tracking. But they're not designed for operational compliance—the daily work of executing tasks, capturing evidence, and maintaining audit trails. See how Canarie fills this gap.
Quick Comparison
| Feature | Traditional GRC | Canarie |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Policy storage and risk assessment | Workflow execution and evidence capture |
| Daily task management | Not a core strength | Built for daily compliance operations |
| Evidence capture | Manual attachment | Automatic with timestamps |
| Implementation time | 6-18 months typical | 30-45 days typical |
| User adoption | Often challenging | Intuitive for daily use |
| Cost | High (enterprise pricing) | Scales with institution size |
When Traditional GRC Works
- Enterprise-wide risk management program
- Complex audit management needs
- Regulatory reporting requirements
- Already have significant investment
When Canarie Works
- Need operational compliance execution
- Want fast implementation
- Need evidence capture and audit trails
- Lean team needs usable tools
- Complement existing GRC investment
Why Institutions Choose Canarie
Canarie isn't trying to replace your GRC—it's the operational layer that makes your GRC investment actually work. Policies in your GRC become executable workflows in Canarie.
Frequently Asked Questions
Ready to see how Canarie compares?
Book a demo to see the difference firsthand.