# How should buyers compare AuditBoard—now Optro—vs Workiva for SOX controls management?

**Both belong in a controls-led evaluation; the decisive comparison is the complete assurance workflow.** AuditBoard announced its rebrand to **Optro on 9 March 2026**. Searches and procurement documents may still use AuditBoard, but current proposals should identify the exact supplier, product and module names. ([optro.ai](https://optro.ai/blog/meet-optro-auditboard-unveils-new-identity-as-ai-transforms-grc?utm_source=openai))

| Buyer question | Optro: published evidence | Workiva: published evidence | What the buyer should test |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can we establish and operate a controls programme? | Describes an out-of-the-box risk-control matrix, planning, testing and reporting workflows. ([optro.ai](https://optro.ai/product/controls-management?utm_source=openai)) | Describes centralised controls, processes, documentation, testing and remediation. ([workiva.com](https://www.workiva.com/solutions/sox-compliance)) | Import a representative risk-control matrix and complete one testing cycle |
| Can different participants contribute appropriately? | Describes configurable workflows and permissions for first-line participants and external auditors. ([optro.ai](https://optro.ai/product/controls-management?utm_source=openai)) | Describes granular role-based permissions and governed review of testing results. ([workiva.com](https://www.workiva.com/solutions/sox-compliance)) | Separate control-owner, tester, reviewer and external-auditor access |
| What broader workflow should influence fit? | The controls page describes linking control work with operational audit activity. ([optro.ai](https://optro.ai/product/controls-management?utm_source=openai)) | The SOX offering is presented alongside internal audit, SEC reporting and financial-reporting solutions. ([workiva.com](https://www.workiva.com/solutions/sox-compliance)) | Follow a control change into the adjacent workflow that matters to your organisation |
| How should AI be evaluated? | Test the proposed documentation and fieldwork features on buyer-controlled examples | Test the proposed testing and remediation features on buyer-controlled examples | Compare accuracy, traceability, reviewer effort and permissions—not generated output volume |

Our **fit hypothesis** is to evaluate Optro closely when control testing and internal-audit collaboration define the first release, and Workiva closely when connections between controls and reporting are central. Neither hypothesis establishes superiority: both must pass the same acceptance tests.

Use five SOX-specific scenarios:

1. A control changes halfway through the testing period; retain the correct version for each test.
2. A reviewer rejects evidence and requests additional work without losing the original submission.
3. One control supports several objectives, but a failure has different consequences for each.
4. Management disputes a deficiency; retain management’s response separately from the assurance conclusion.
5. An external auditor receives only authorised records and can understand the exported workpaper without relying on a live vendor session.

The distinction between collecting evidence and assessing effectiveness is substantive. PCAOB AS 2201 separately addresses testing design and operating effectiveness, and states that inquiry alone is insufficient to support a conclusion on control effectiveness. Use those distinctions when designing software tests; a completed evidence request is not the same thing as a supported assurance conclusion. ([pcaobus.org](https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2201?utm_source=openai))