Two published dimensions, and no published total
Drata's AWS Marketplace listing carries a public pricing table with two lines on it: a platform fee, and a flat fee for each compliance framework you put in scope.
Drata on AWS Marketplace: the published dimensions
checked July 2026
Every figure below is priced per 12-month contract, read off the listing itself.
| Dimension, as listed | Listed price |
|---|---|
| Platform Feecapacity for a 100 FTE organisation | $25,000 |
| Each compliance frameworkflat per framework: SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CCPA, CMMC, MS SSPA, NIST CSF | $7,500 |
Listed on AWS Marketplace (prodview-3ubrmmqkovucy), checked July 2026. AWS shows no price-effective date on the pricing tab, so the check date is the provenance. These are the dimensions the listing publishes separately; it publishes no combined figure, so add only the lines your own scope needs. The listing also offers a private-offer path, so a negotiated price may differ from the list dimensions above. A marketplace list price is a real public fact; what the vendor actually sells at is not something we know.
The most important thing about that table is what is not on it. AWS publishes the platform fee and the framework fee as two separate line items. It does not publish a combined figure for a platform-plus-SOC-2 programme, and neither does Drata. Any single headline number for what Drata costs is somebody's arithmetic rather than a published price, which is why there is not one on this page. Add the platform line to as many framework lines as your own roadmap actually needs.
The flat per-framework fee is genuinely useful
Drata prices every framework the same: $7,500 per 12-month contract, flat, whether it is SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CCPA, CMMC, MS SSPA or NIST CSF. That is the most legible line in GRC platform pricing and it is worth saying so plainly. It means the marginal cost of your second framework is a known public number rather than a percentage uplift discovered at renewal, and a three-framework roadmap can be forecast years ahead from figures anyone can read.
The flip side of a flat fee is that it is flat in both directions. Frameworks do not get cheaper in bulk at list, and control overlap between SOC 2 and ISO 27001 that genuinely reduces audit effort does not reduce this line at all. The platform fee is also scoped to one stated capacity, a 100 FTE organisation, and the listing says nothing about what happens above or below it. So the pricing is legible at the band it is written for and silent everywhere else.
Against the platforms that publish at the same band
Three vendors publish a platform dimension scoped to roughly 100 employees, which makes them directly comparable to each other. This is the only clean like-for-like the listings support, and it is not close.
| Vendor | Platform, ~100 employees | First framework |
|---|---|---|
| Secureframe | $7,500 | $7,500 |
| Sprinto | $7,500 | from $2,000 |
| Drata | $25,000 | $7,500 |
AWS Marketplace list prices per 12-month contract, checked July 2026. Each platform dimension is scoped by its own listing to around 100 employees, which is what makes these three comparable. Vanta and Scrut are absent because their published dimensions are scoped to a 20-employee band, and comparing across bands would be comparing different things.
Drata's published platform fee is more than three times what Secureframe and Sprinto list at the same band, and its framework line is the highest of the three as well. On the published numbers, Drata is the most expensive of the three platforms that publish at the 100-employee band, on both lines, with no line where it is cheaper.
That is a statement about list prices and nothing more. All three listings either offer a private offer or invite a quote, and what any vendor actually sells at is not something we know. A buyer who takes only one thing from this page should take this: the published gap is large enough that it is worth making Drata explain what the premium buys for your scope, rather than assuming the category prices at parity.
Where Drata still earns the shortlist
Price is one input and this site is not going to pretend it is the only one. Drata's flat framework fee is a real advantage for a company with a genuine multi-framework roadmap, because it is the only listing in the category that lets you forecast the cost of frameworks four and five from a public number. If your roadmap is SOC 2 now, ISO 27001 next year and HIPAA after that, that legibility has value that a lower unforecastable platform fee does not.
What this page will not do is tell you Drata has the cleanest interface or the best customer success team, because those claims are not ours to verify and the places they usually get sourced from are review aggregators. Run a trial, talk to the team, and form your own view. Take the published numbers above into that conversation as the thing you can actually check.
What the listing does not tell you
The platform fee is scoped to a 100 FTE organisation and the listing publishes nothing above or below that, so a 30-person company and a 400-person company are both reading a number written for someone else. What the platform fee includes, and where the capacity step falls if you grow through it, are quote questions. So is the renewal escalator: no vendor publishes one, and it decides what you actually pay across three years more than the year-one price does.
The audit is not on the listing either, correctly, because Drata does not sell one. The SOC 2 examination is a separate CPA engagement quoted against your scope, and no firm publishes a rate card. The audit firms guide covers what actually moves that number.