Not all SOC 2 reports are created equal. Use this interactive tool to quickly evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of any SOC 2 report before you accept it into your vendor risk programme.
Criteria based on the SOC 2 Quality Guild rubric — an open, community-driven effort to establish quality signals for SOC 2 reports.
Open the SOC 2 report you are reviewing, then work through each quality signal below. For every signal, choose one:
The report meets this quality signal.
Red flag detected. Needs attention.
Not applicable or can't determine.
Rate each signal to see your score
Is the auditor a registered CPA firm enrolled in the AICPA Peer Review Program?
The auditor must be a registered CPA firm enrolled in the AICPA Peer Review Program. Individual CPAs signing without firm affiliation or unregistered firms indicate the audit may not be legitimate or subject to proper oversight.
Look at the bottom of Section 1 for the firm name and signature. Verify registration at nasba.org (state board) and aicpa.org (peer review). If you can't confirm registration, reject the report and request one from a properly credentialed firm.
Is the report free of heavy GRC platform branding that isn't the auditor or audited company?
Heavy branding from a GRC platform (not the auditor or audited company) throughout the report suggests the platform auto-generated content without sufficient independent auditor customization or judgment.
Scan the full report for logos and branding. Only the auditor's firm and audited company should be featured. If a compliance platform's branding exists, increase scrutiny on test procedures and consider whether the audit included genuine independent verification versus automated report generation.
Does the auditing firm have a credible industry reputation?
Some firms are known in the industry for cutting corners, racing to the bottom on price, or producing template-heavy reports. Others are known for rigorous, thoughtful audits. Reputation signals likely quality.
Search the firm name on G2, Gartner Peer Insights, or LinkedIn for reviews and discussions. Ask your TPRM network if anyone has experience with this auditor. If you find patterns of quality concerns, factor this into your assessment and ask for more supplemental evidence.
Does Section 1 contain all AICPA-mandated paragraphs?
AICPA standards mandate specific paragraphs: "Scope," "Opinion," and for Type 2, "Description of Tests of Controls." Missing or incorrect paragraphs indicate the auditor doesn't know standards or took shortcuts.
Scan Section 1 for labeled paragraphs. For Type 2, verify there's a paragraph referencing tests in Section 4. Check that the Opinion clearly states whether controls were suitably designed and operating effectively. Missing or generic language is a structural red flag — document and escalate before accepting.
Do test descriptions show what was actually examined rather than vague boilerplate?
Vague test descriptions like "reviewed evidence" or "inspected evidence" tell you nothing about what was actually examined. Look for descriptions indicating the test was reperformed or observed. Specific descriptions like "inspected 35 quarterly access reviews across the period and verified manager approval and timely removal" demonstrate more testing rigor.
Pick 5–7 controls critical to your use case and read their test procedures line by line. Look for: what evidence was examined, how many samples, from what time periods, and what specifically was verified. If procedures are interchangeable boilerplate, flag these controls and request direct evidence from the vendor.
Are samples large enough and distributed across the full audit period?
Testing 5 items once at period-start for a daily control provides weak assurance. Testing 40 items distributed across 12 months provides stronger confidence. Sample methodology reveals thoroughness of effectiveness verification.
For your critical controls, count the samples and check timing. For technical controls (MFA, encryption), look for testing of configuration and system-generated evidence. For periodic controls (quarterly reviews), verify all instances were tested. Small samples (5–10) or period-end clustering is a limitation — note it and consider direct verification.
Does Section 3 name real products, infrastructure, and org structure?
Section 3 should name actual products, technology stack components, infrastructure providers, and organizational structure. Generic buzzwords that could describe any company suggest the auditor didn't engage with the real environment.
Look for specific details: AWS/Azure/GCP, named SaaS tools, data center locations, organizational charts, architecture diagrams. If it reads like marketing copy you could paste to any company, the auditor likely didn't dig in. Cross-reference against what you know about the vendor's actual tech stack.
Do controls specify who, what, when, and how — or just vague statements?
Vague controls like "Management maintains security" don't tell you what's actually happening. Clear controls specify what happens, who does it, how often, and what makes it effective.
Read control descriptions for specificity. Good: "Security team reviews production access quarterly, validates business justification with managers, removes unjustified access within 24 hours." Bad: "Access is reviewed periodically." If controls are consistently vague, you can't assess their relevance — request the vendor's actual control documentation.
Do controls logically map to the Trust Services Criteria they claim to address?
Each control maps to Trust Services Criteria (like CC6.1 for logical access). Illogical mappings — such as "annual meetings" mapped to technical access controls — suggest the auditor didn't think critically about what controls actually accomplish.
Spot-check 10 control mappings. Ask: does this control logically address this criterion? If technical controls are mapped to wrong categories or soft controls are used for hard technical requirements, the scoping wasn't thoughtful. Document questionable mappings and probe whether those areas are well-designed.
Is Management's Assertion present, complete, and signed by company leadership?
Management must formally assert their system description is accurate, controls are suitably designed, and (Type 2) operating effectively. Missing or incomplete assertions mean management hasn't taken responsibility for their control environment per AICPA standards.
Find Management's Assertion in Section 1 or as a separate section. Verify it includes all required elements and is signed by company leadership. If missing, incomplete, or unsigned, the report doesn't meet basic standards — request a complete version before proceeding with your assessment.
This checklist tells you where to look. ISMS Copilot tells you what it means and what to do next.
Paste a control description, a test procedure, or an entire Section 4 excerpt into ISMS Copilot and ask it to evaluate the quality against SOC 2 / AICPA standards. It's the ChatGPT of GRC — built by compliance professionals, for compliance professionals.
Free to start. No credit card required.
The quality signals used in this tool are based on the SOC 2 Quality Signals rubric created and maintained by the SOC 2 Quality Guild — a community-driven, crowd-sourced effort to establish generally-accepted guidelines for evaluating SOC 2 report quality. The original rubric is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.
In accordance with that license, this interactive adaptation by ISMS Copilot is also shared under CC BY-SA 4.0. We have not modified the substance of the signals — only reformatted them into an interactive checklist with a scoring mechanism.
© 2026 SOC 2 Quality Guild (original rubric). Interactive tool by ISMS Copilot. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
This tool is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal, audit, or professional advice. ISMS Copilot is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or formally associated with the SOC 2 Quality Guild, the AICPA, or any auditing firm. The results of this checker are not a substitute for professional judgment. Always consult a qualified professional when making vendor risk management decisions.
