Rewrite: automated-compliance-separating-real-from-marketing

Word count: ~1,650

Specificity markers hit:

1. ✅ NIST/CMMC control reference (AT.L2-3.2.1, CA.L2-3.12.3, and others)
2. ✅ Cost/time estimate (200-400 hours evidence collection, $15K-$50K/year platform cost, $100K-$500K implementation)
3. ✅ Tool/product name (Secureframe, Drata, Vanta, Qmulos, RegScale, KnowBe4)
4. ✅ Common mistake (buying a platform thinking it creates compliance)
5. ✅ Decision point with guidance (whether a compliance platform justifies its cost)

---

# Automated Compliance: Separating Real from Marketing

Every GRC vendor in the CMMC space will tell you their platform "automates compliance." Some of these tools are genuinely useful. None of them do what the marketing implies. Understanding what compliance automation actually does — and where it stops — will save you from spending $30,000 a year on a tool that covers 20% of the problem while you think it covers 80%.

This matters because CMMC compliance has two distinct parts: implementing controls (the hard part) and proving you implemented them (the expensive part). Automation tools help with the second part. They do almost nothing for the first.

What Automation Actually Does Well

Evidence Collection

This is the strongest use case and the one that justifies the cost for most organizations. CMMC Level 2 requires demonstrating compliance with 110 controls, broken into roughly 320 assessment objectives per NIST SP 800-171A. For each objective, your assessor wants evidence — configuration screenshots, access logs, policy documents, training records.

Manually collecting this evidence takes 200–400 hours per assessment cycle. You're logging into systems, taking screenshots, exporting configurations, organizing files, and repeating the process every three years (plus maintaining it for annual affirmations).

Compliance platforms integrate with your infrastructure — Azure AD, AWS GovCloud, Microsoft 365, endpoint management tools, SIEM — and automatically pull configuration data, access logs, and system state. Instead of screenshotting 320 assessment objectives, the platform collects evidence continuously and flags when something changes.

Major platforms in this space: Secureframe, Drata, and Vanta (all general-purpose with CMMC modules), Qmulos (CMMC-focused, Splunk-integrated), and RegScale (automation-heavy, built for fast-moving environments). Pricing runs $15,000–$50,000 per year depending on company size, integration depth, and features.

Continuous Monitoring

Good platforms track your control status in real time and alert you when configurations drift out of compliance. A firewall rule changes, an MFA token expires, a system falls behind on patches — you get notified. This directly supports CA.L2-3.12.3 (monitoring security controls on an ongoing basis) and makes your annual affirmation substantive rather than ceremonial.

The monitoring is only as good as the integrations. If the platform can't see a system, it can't monitor it. On-premises infrastructure may need additional agents or connectors. Cloud-native environments (Azure GCC High, AWS GovCloud) integrate more cleanly.

Gap Analysis

Most platforms map your current state against CMMC requirements and display a dashboard of what's met, partially met, and not met. Useful as a starting point — it tells you where to focus remediation.

The limitation: gap analysis is only as accurate as the data the platform can access. If you have systems the platform doesn't integrate with, the gap analysis has blind spots. And some controls are inherently un-scannable: policy quality, training effectiveness, personnel screening. The platform can confirm a policy document exists in your SharePoint. It cannot tell you whether the policy makes sense.

Task and Workflow Management

Assigning remediation tasks, tracking completion, managing timelines, generating reports. This is project management functionality — useful when you're coordinating 110 controls across IT, security, HR, and management. Some platforms integrate with Jira or ServiceNow for teams already using those.

What Automation Cannot Do

Write Your SSP

Your System Security Plan is the document that describes how your specific organization implements each of the 110 Level 2 controls. It needs to reflect your actual environment — your network topology, your specific tools, your operational procedures, your org structure.

Some platforms generate SSP drafts or templates populated with data from their integrations. These save time over writing from scratch. But every control description needs human review and customization. "Our organization enforces MFA for all remote access via Azure AD Conditional Access policies tied to our GCC High tenant" is a real SSP entry. "Access control is managed through centralized identity management" is a template that tells the assessor nothing.

Budget 80–120 hours to write or customize your SSP, even with automation assistance.

Implement Controls

Buying a compliance platform does not configure your firewalls, deploy MFA, segment your network, set up centralized logging, or harden your endpoints. You still need to do the technical work — or hire someone to do it.

This is the most common misunderstanding. Organizations buy a compliance tool thinking it will "make them compliant." The tool monitors compliance. It doesn't create it. It's the dashcam, not the driving.

Implementation costs for a small-to-mid organization going from minimal security to CMMC Level 2 readiness typically run $100,000–$500,000 in technical infrastructure, configuration, and consulting. The compliance platform is separate from and in addition to this.

Train Your People

The Awareness and Training domain (AT.L2-3.2.1, AT.L2-3.2.2, AT.L2-3.2.3) requires security awareness training for all users and role-specific training for security personnel. Some compliance platforms offer basic training modules; most don't. Even those that do typically provide generic content that may not address CMMC-specific topics like CUI handling, incident reporting timelines, or insider threat recognition.

Dedicated security awareness platforms — KnowBe4, Proofpoint Security Awareness, SANS Security Awareness — do this better. Budget $15–$30 per user per year for a proper program with phishing simulation, CUI-specific modules, and completion tracking.

Replace Your C3PAO Assessment

The platform can show you a green dashboard. It cannot certify you. CMMC Level 2 certification requires a human assessment by a qualified C3PAO: document review, personnel interviews, and technical testing. The assessor needs to see your evidence, talk to your people, and verify your controls work — not look at your vendor's dashboard.

Some compliance platforms offer "assessment readiness" features that simulate the assessment process. These help identify gaps before the real thing, but they carry no authority to grant CMMC certification.

Cover 100% of Controls

Automation works well for technical controls that can be queried through APIs — system configurations, access policies, log collection status, patch levels. It works poorly for management and procedural controls — policy quality, role definitions, personnel screening, physical access controls, incident response plan adequacy.

Realistically, a good compliance platform provides automated evidence for 60–70% of CMMC Level 2 controls. The remaining 30–40% require human judgment, documentation, and manual evidence collection. Any vendor claiming 100% automation coverage is exaggerating.

Common Mistakes

Buying before building. Organizations buy a compliance platform when they're still trying to figure out their scope, haven't deployed MFA, and don't have a SIEM. The platform can't tell them anything useful yet because there's nothing to connect to. Sequence matters: implement controls, then instrument them. Buying a compliance platform in month one of a CMMC program is premature.

Treating the dashboard as the evidence. Your C3PAO assessor is not going to log into your vendor's dashboard and call it a day. They want exportable evidence — configuration files, screenshots, log exports, signed policy documents. Make sure your platform can produce evidence packages in formats your assessor will accept. Ask specifically how they handle evidence export before signing a contract.

License-first thinking. Be cautious of vendors whose first conversation is about licensing — Microsoft GCC High licensing, Splunk licensing, cloud infrastructure. Licensing is a component of compliance, not compliance itself. A vendor who wants to sell you licenses before understanding your environment is optimizing for their revenue, not your assessment outcome.

How to Evaluate a Compliance Tool

Cut through the marketing with these questions:

"What percentage of CMMC Level 2 assessment objectives does your platform provide automated evidence for?" Get a number mapped to specific control IDs, not a marketing claim. A good platform will hand you their CMMC coverage matrix immediately. One that hesitates is hiding sparse coverage behind broad claims.

"Does it integrate with my actual environment?" If you're running Microsoft GCC High, the tool needs a GCC High connector — not just commercial Azure. If you're on-premises, cloud-only tools won't see half your systems. Ask for the specific integration documentation for your tech stack.

"What does the assessor-facing evidence package look like?" Can the tool export evidence organized by domain and control? Can it produce a hash manifest for evidence integrity? Can your C3PAO open it without a vendor login? Get a demo of the export, not just the dashboard.

"What does onboarding look like?" Typical implementation: 4–12 weeks from contract signing to a functional platform. What IT resources does it require? Are there professional services included or is that extra cost?

"Show me a customer who passed their CMMC Level 2 C3PAO assessment using your platform." Any vendor claiming CMMC expertise should have customers who have completed assessments. Push for specifics.

What Your Assessor Expects

A compliance automation tool is a productivity multiplier, not a compliance solution. If you have more than 50 employees or more than 20 systems in scope, the evidence collection automation alone will pay for itself compared to a manual approach. But budget for the implementation work separately. The platform tracks the work. You still have to do the work.

When your assessor arrives, they evaluate your actual controls — not your dashboard. Your SSP, your configurations, your trained personnel, and your implemented controls are what pass the assessment. The platform is your evidence library. Make sure it's organized, exportable, and current.

---

Ready to scope your CMMC program? Start with a gap assessment before buying any compliance software — you need to know what you're monitoring before you buy the monitoring tool.