My 6 Picks for the Best Enterprise Risk Management Software

I’ve always believed chaos is just a sign of a missing system.

So, when I started noticing how often risk shows up quietly in delayed approvals, compliance reviews, or unexpected dependencies, it got me thinking: how do enterprise teams stay ahead of all this without getting buried in it?

That curiosity led me to explore how companies manage risk at scale. Not from a distance but by digging into the software that helps them track issues, maintain compliance, and make faster, more informed decisions.

To write this guide on the best enterprise risk management software, I reviewed feedback on 20+ platforms, focusing on how well they handle risk identification, real-time reporting, compliance workflows, automation, and cross-functional visibility.

Below are the six tools that stood out for their clarity, flexibility, and ability to help teams move forward without second-guessing what might go wrong.

Why these are the best enterprise risk management software

It’s easy to assume risk management is all about compliance, but the more I explored, the more I realized it’s really about clarity. Clarity in decision-making, accountability, and how fast a business can respond when something doesn’t go as planned.

That’s what I kept in mind while evaluating these tools. I wasn’t just looking for software that could track risks. I paid close attention to how each handles complexity without becoming part of the problem. Did users say it surfaced the right information at the right time? Could it adapt to different frameworks? Was it helping teams work together or slowing them down?

Some tools checked all the boxes but still came off as rigid. Others offered plenty of flexibility but lacked the structure teams needed to scale. The ones that stood out based on what I found in user reviews balanced both criteria, which earned them a spot on this list.

What I looked for in the best ERM software

I considered the following factors when evaluating the best enterprise risk management software.

• Centralized risk visibility: A clear, consolidated view of risks across business units is at the heart of any strong ERM platform. I prioritized tools that made it easy to map and categorize risks, link them to controls, and monitor them in real time. Bonus points if the platform supported heatmaps, risk scoring, and clear ownership assignments.
• Automated compliance and audit workflows: Manually managing frameworks like SOX, ISO 31000, or GDPR is a huge time sink. I looked closely at platforms that offered built-in compliance workflows, document management, and automated evidence collection for audits. The best tools help streamline control testing and make staying ready for audit season year-round easier.
• Support for multiple risk types and frameworks: Every business manages a mix of risks from operational and reputational to cyber and third-party. I evaluated how well each platform handled different risk categories and whether they offered flexible, customizable frameworks to support various industries and use cases.
• Customization and scalability: I looked for platforms that allowed tailored workflows, custom risk assessments, adaptable scoring models, and role-based permissions. The best enterprise risk management software scales up with organizational complexity without becoming too rigid or overwhelming.
• Cross-functional collaboration: Risk doesn’t sit in a silo; it touches every team. I prioritized platforms that supported collaboration between risk, compliance, IT, legal, finance, and ops.
• Integrations and data sharing: Whether pulling data from human resources information system (HRIS), GRC, vendor management, or cybersecurity tools, the best ERM software shouldn’t operate in a vacuum. I focused on platforms that made connecting existing systems easy, automated data flow, and eliminated manual entry across teams.
• Reporting and executive insights: I also paid close attention to reporting tools. The strongest platforms delivered clear, customizable reports that helped turn raw data into action-ready insights.

The list below contains genuine user reviews from the ERM software category page. To be included in this category, a solution must:

• Catalog, assess, and mitigate business-specific risks such as financial or health and safety
• Provide tools to communicate risks to employees, customers, vendors, and suppliers
• Create, maintain, and implement corporate policies and rules for internal and external use
• Maintain an up-to-date repository of laws, regulations, and industry standards
• Help users plan, implement, and track the performance of audit programs and tasks
• Ensure business continuity management through incident management and risk mitigation
• Deliver training and learning for compliance purposes, including certifications
• Perform third-party, vendor, and supplier risk assessments and due diligence
• Support multiple risk management methodologies, such as quantitative and qualitative
• Gather and analyze environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data from various sources

*This data was pulled from G2 in 2025. Some reviews may have been edited for clarity.

AuditBoard is a risk and compliance platform that’s widely used for internal audit, SOX, and enterprise risk management. It’s designed to help teams manage controls, track documentation, and collaborate on audit workflows from one centralized space.

One of the most consistent themes I noticed in G2 reviews was how easy AuditBoard is to use. Reviewers repeatedly called out its intuitive layout, clean UI, and the fact that even new team members could find their way around without much hand-holding. Compared to more rigid GRC tools, AuditBoard seems to lower the barrier to getting started, especially for control owners outside the audit team.

Audit management was a frequent topic in the feedback I reviewed. Users mentioned how helpful the platform is for organizing testing, linking controls to risks, and managing walkthroughs or evidence in one place. Several reviewers appreciated that it streamlined their audit cycle and made collaboration between auditors, stakeholders, and external teams more efficient.

Customer support was another strong point across reviews. I noticed multiple users pointing out how responsive and knowledgeable the support team is, particularly during onboarding or when rolling out new features. A few even said that having access to helpful reps made the difference between a rocky and a smooth implementation.

That said, not everything is seamless. While the interface gets high marks overall, reviewers noted a learning curve when it comes to some of the more advanced or newer features. Several mentioned that documentation or training resources could be improved for teams scaling up or adding more modules.

Another theme that popped up in the reviews I evaluated was related to syncing and integrations. Several users mentioned issues connecting AuditBoard with external tools, mainly reporting or data visualization platforms. Some found the sync inconsistent, which created friction during audits or executive reporting cycles.

What I dislike about AuditBoard:

• I saw quite a few reviewers mention that there’s a learning curve when rolling out newer features or modules.
• Syncing came up as a recurring pain point, especially for teams using external reporting tools. I imagine the challenges of relying on those connections and not having them work consistently.

What G2 users dislike about AuditBoard:

“AuditBoard does not do the best with letting clients know about issues happening within their system that are impacting users, and sometimes we only find out after we submit a service desk ticket. Examples include times when we could not download our testing documents, and this was a known issue affecting multiple customers, yet we did not learn that this issue was being worked on until after a ticket was submitted. Customer support does do well with working with you once a ticket is submitted, which is positive; I just think they could be more proactive.”

– AuditBoard Review, Nick N.

Workiva is an enterprise platform known for simplifying complex reporting, compliance, and risk workflows. Finance, audit, and risk teams use it to manage controls, collaborate on documents, and align reporting with regulatory requirements.

One thing that came through strongly in the G2 reviews I evaluated was how well Workiva handles reporting. Users consistently called out how easy it is to link data, build reports, and maintain consistency across everything from risk matrices to board-level summaries. According to G2 feedback, the platform seems particularly well-suited for large teams that need to keep everything audit-ready without chasing spreadsheets.

Collaboration was another major strength across the reviews I looked through. Teams mentioned that it’s easy to work on live documents, assign tasks, and keep communication centralized, whether managing a quarterly report or a full enterprise risk review. Based on what I read, that cross-functional transparency is a big win for risk teams that don’t operate in a silo.

Reviewers also often described Workiva as their “single source of truth.” I saw multiple mentions of version control, data linking, and the ability to avoid duplicate work across teams. That reliability seems especially valuable in enterprise environments where one misstep in documentation can create downstream risks.

However, several reviewers flagged a learning curve, especially during onboarding or configuring more advanced workflows. For teams new to ERM software or those without dedicated platform support, it could take time to get entirely up to speed.

I also came across multiple reviews that described the setup as time-consuming. While the platform clearly has depth, some users felt the implementation effort was heavier than expected, especially when managing multiple frameworks or migrating from legacy systems.

What I dislike about Workiva:

• Several reviews mentioned the learning curve, especially for new users. I imagine setting up complex workflows would take time without strong support.
• I also saw comments about the setup process feeling heavier than expected. If I were rolling it out company-wide, I’d want to plan for this upfront.

What G2 users dislike about Workiva:

“Very often, connection is very slow. There are features to be improved such as – formulas, pivots. Also, there is no current way to share documents with a big group of people without giving access to each one to Workiva – for example, a group of 10000 people within one organization.”

– Workiva Review, Kristian T.

Scrut Automation is a compliance and risk management platform designed to help companies simplify their audit readiness processes across frameworks like ISO 27001, SOC 2, and GDPR. It’s especially popular with fast-growing teams looking to replace manual tracking with something more structured and automated.

As I read through G2 reviews, one thing that came up often was how easy Scrut is to use. Reviewers described the platform as clean, straightforward, and simple to navigate. It helps teams stay engaged without needing long onboarding sessions.

Automation also stood out across the reviews I looked at (it’s in the name). Scrut helps streamline recurring tasks like evidence collection, risk assessments, and control testing. Several users mentioned how much time it saved their teams during audits and internal reviews, especially compared to doing everything manually.

The platform’s built-in support for frameworks like ISO 27001 and SOC 2 was another strong theme. Based on user feedback, Scrut seems to come pre-configured with a lot of what teams need to get started: policies, controls, and task templates, so they’re not building their programs from scratch.

Some reviewers pointed out that Scrut’s risk management features aren’t as flexible as they’d like. A few noted challenges in categorizing risks or adapting frameworks to their specific organizational setup.

I also noticed a handful of reviews mentioning occasional slowness or bugs in the UI. If you’re managing high volumes of data, that’s something to keep in mind.

What I dislike about Scrut Automation:

• Some reviewers said the risk management features weren’t as flexible or built out as other areas. If I were running a more complex ERM program, I’d want to explore that carefully.
• I also saw a few comments about occasional bugs or slow load times. It’s not a dealbreaker, but I’d want to be sure performance stays consistent over time.

What G2 users dislike about Scrut Automation:

“At times, there is a delay in syncing changes within Google Workspace (Gsuite), such as newly added employees, So it creates confusion as to why my employee count is showing less.”

– Scrut Automation Review, Sandeep S.

Hyperproof helps organizations manage risk, streamline compliance, and stay audit-ready across multiple frameworks. It’s often used by teams navigating SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and other standards, with a strong focus on evidence management and ongoing monitoring.

As I reviewed G2 feedback, I noticed how often Hyperproof was praised for supporting multiple compliance frameworks in one place. Users shared that it helped them reduce duplicate work by centralizing controls, linking evidence, and reusing documentation across audits. For teams juggling overlapping requirements, the flexibility here makes a real difference.

Evidence collection was also a common power theme. According to the reviews I combed through, the platform makes it easy to assign tasks, upload proof, and track audit progress without constantly checking in across teams. It is especially helpful when deadlines are tight, or audits are happening simultaneously.

Something else that stood out was how often users mentioned the Hyperproof team itself. I saw multiple reviews calling out proactive onboarding, fast support responses, and regular check-ins from customer success reps. For a product this deep, that kind of partnership can make or break the experience.

There were, however, some mentions of a learning curve. A few users noted that it took time to fully understand how to set up programs or unlock the platform’s full potential, more so for teams managing complex risk scenarios.

Customization limitations also came up in reviews, particularly around dashboards and templates. Some users felt restricted in how much they could tailor the interface to fit their internal workflows or reporting preferences.

What I dislike about Hyperproof:

• Several users noted a learning curve, especially during early implementation. I’d probably want a solid onboarding plan in place to make the most of it.
• I also came across feedback about limited dashboard customization. If you want to get highly tailored views or reports, you must confirm what’s possible upfront.

What G2 users dislike about Hyperproof:

“The dashboard lacks customization options, and the internal reporting feature falls short of expectations, as it is also non-customizable. Hyperproof’s suggested solution is to use Snowflake integration to extract data and generate reports. Additionally, a customizable, template-based questionnaire for assessments is not available.”

– Hyperproof Review, Sathish S.

Fusion Framework System is built for risk and resilience teams managing complex operations, incidents, and continuity planning. Large enterprises use it to centralize risk processes and prepare for potential disruptions.

Across the G2 reviews I examined, risk management consistently emerged as a strong point. Users shared how Fusion helps them stay on top of risk assessments, track mitigation efforts, and respond faster when issues arise. A few mentioned that having a centralized view helped their teams better align priorities across departments.

Business continuity and disaster recovery were also commonly mentioned in the feedback I reviewed. Many users discussed how Fusion helps document response plans, assign roles, and simulate scenarios, strengthening teams’ operational resilience. It seems to offer the kind of structure needed when preparation can’t afford to be reactive.

I also noticed several reviewers commenting on how approachable the platform feels once it’s up and running. Users described the interface as adaptable, particularly when configuring dashboards or navigating day-to-day workflows.

That said, getting to that point takes some effort. I came across a few reviews that mention a steep learning curve during implementation, especially when setting up highly customized programs.

Customer support came up in a few reviews as an area that could improve. While not a dealbreaker, some users said they would’ve appreciated more hands-on help during rollout or when troubleshooting specific use cases.

What I dislike about Fusion Framework System:

• Several users described the learning curve as steeper than expected. Before diving in, I’d want to make sure there’s a clear implementation plan in place.
• A few reviews mentioned support could be more proactive. If I were managing a time-sensitive rollout, I’d want to double-check the level of help available.

What G2 users dislike about Fusion Framework System:

“An area that Fusion Framework System could consider revising is the graphical user interface because it is rather medley to novice users. This has made the learning process of the team slow and required more training to get familiar with and utilize all the features of the app. Moreover, the software has virtually every setting adjustable, with their administration time-consuming and sometimes requiring professional-level knowledge. Such factors have at times limited ability to fully unlock value from the software capabilities as desired.”

– Fusion Framework System Review, Martin B.

IBM OpenPages allows organizations to manage complex risk, compliance, and audit workflows. It’s built for scale, with deep functionality across risk domains and integrations with IBM’s AI and data platforms.

One of the most consistent patterns I saw in G2 reviews was OpenPages’ strength in risk management. Users shared that it helped them build structured workflows for identifying, assessing, and tracking risks across their organizations. Several reviewers noted that it was instrumental in highly regulated industries where risk oversight needs to be airtight.

Another standout feature across the reviews I read was the integration with IBM Watson. According to users, the platform leverages natural language processing to automate tasks like reviewing policies, parsing documentation, or identifying risks from unstructured data. That AI-driven approach seems to set OpenPages apart from more traditional GRC systems.

There were also signs that OpenPages can support a wide range of risk types. While reviewers didn’t always list them out directly, I saw mentions of modules for third-party risk management, incident tracking, policy management, and audit workflows. Based on what I read, it feels flexible enough to adapt to different risk functions depending on the organization’s needs.

All said and done, OpenPages isn’t something most teams can roll out overnight. Several reviews referenced a complex implementation process that required strong internal alignment and support from IBM to get it right. It’s powerful but clearly built for companies with the resources to manage a large-scale deployment.

Cost came up a few times as well. While reviewers didn’t call it out as a major issue, a few mentioned that the price point and resource requirements might be better suited for large enterprises than mid-sized teams.

What I dislike about IBM OpenPages:

• Implementation sounds like a project in itself. Before taking it on, I’d want to ensure we had the right internal support.
• Cost wasn’t the biggest complaint, but it did come up. For a mid-sized business, I’d probably need to weigh the long-term value against the initial investment.

What G2 users dislike about IBM OpenPages:

“The Cost is high as compared to other GRC tools, and there are some hurdles in user adoption.”

– IBM OpenPages Review, Vishal D.

It depends on what your team needs, but based on my evaluation of G2 reviews, AuditBoard and Workiva consistently stand out. AuditBoard is praised for its user-friendly interface and strong audit capabilities, making it a great fit for internal audit teams. Workiva excels in reporting and cross-team collaboration, especially in regulated industries.

2. What is the best enterprise risk management software for banks?

For banking and financial services, IBM OpenPages and Workiva are two strong choices. OpenPages is designed for enterprise-scale implementations and supports robust risk modeling, compliance tracking, and integration with IBM Watson for automation. Workiva, on the other hand, offers excellent real-time reporting and version control, which is valuable for regulatory reporting and audit readiness in financial institutions.

3. What are some ERM tools for insurance companies?

Based on what I’ve seen in G2 reviews, insurance companies might consider a few tools: Fusion Framework System for continuity planning and incident response, AuditBoard for audit and compliance management, and Hyperproof for evidence tracking and multi-framework compliance. These platforms offer different strengths depending on how your insurance team structures risk and compliance internally.

4. Which ERM tools are best for compliance automation?

Scrut Automation, Hyperproof, and Workiva are all solid picks for teams looking to streamline compliance. Scrut stands out for its pre-built support for ISO 27001 and SOC 2, while Hyperproof makes it easy to manage multiple frameworks without duplicating work. Workiva ties automation directly to reporting and audit documentation, which is helpful for recurring compliance cycles.

5. Which enterprise risk management tools offer the best reporting features?

Workiva is frequently praised for its real-time reporting, executive dashboards, and data linking across teams. It’s beneficial for organizations that need to present clear, audit-ready insights to leadership or external stakeholders.

Risky business? Not anymore

Managing risk doesn’t have to mean endless spreadsheets and crossed fingers. The best enterprise risk management software helps teams stay aligned, audit-ready, and a step ahead.

From simplifying evidence collection to mapping risks across frameworks, the tools I’ve reviewed here reflect what real users actually value. I’ve combed through the feedback to surface what works (and what doesn’t) so you can spend less time comparing platforms and more time building a program that works.

Also managing vendor risk? Explore the best third-party and supplier risk management software to stay ahead of supplier issues and external dependencies.