Matproof vs Sprinto: Compliance Automation Compared

Introduction

In Q3 2025, Germany's financial regulatory authority, BaFin, issued its first DORA-related enforcement notice. The fine? A hefty EUR 450,000. The violation? A financial institution's inadequate documentation of their ICT third-party risk management. This isn't just a cautionary tale; it's a wake-up call for financial institutions across Europe. With DORA, GDPR, NIS2, and ISO 27001 shaping the compliance landscape, the stakes are high: fines can run into millions, audits can lead to crippling operational disruptions, and reputations can be tarnished for years. For compliance professionals, CISOs, and IT leaders, the question isn't whether to automate compliance, but how. This article offers an in-depth comparison between two major players in the compliance automation space: Matproof and Sprinto.

Understanding the nuances of compliance automation is crucial because the European financial sector is under a microscope. With regulations like DORA aiming to bolster the resilience of digital operational risk, and GDPR safeguarding personal data, non-compliance isn't just a minor oversight—it's a threat to the very viability of an institution. The financial sector must pivot from a reactive stance to a proactive one, embracing technology that not only meets but anticipates regulatory demands. For those seeking clarity in this complex landscape, this assessment will dissect the offerings of Matproof and Sprinto, providing insights that can guide strategic decisions.

The Core Problem

The core problem lies in the inefficiency and potential for human error in manual compliance processes. Consider the cost: a single audit failure can lead to fines upwards of EUR 10 million per violation under GDPR, not to mention the reputational damage. Time wasted in manual processes equates to millions in opportunity costs, as teams grapple with mountains of paperwork instead of strategic initiatives. The risk exposure is even more alarming, with recent studies showing that 70% of financial institutions lack comprehensive third-party risk management, a critical area under DORA.

Many organizations believing that compliance is a static target—a set of rules to be checked off a list. However, regulations are dynamic, and staying compliant requires agility and constant vigilance. Article 28(2) of DORA, for instance, emphasizes the importance of third-party risk management, necessitating robust ICT risk documentation and regular updates. Yet, many financial institutions fall short, either due to inadequate internal processes or a lack of technology designed to keep pace with regulatory changes.

Why This Is Urgent Now

Recent regulatory changes have accelerated the urgency. DORA, which came into effect in January 2023, has already prompted BaFin to enforce its provisions, as evidenced by the aforementioned EUR 450,000 fine. Moreover, with the European Data Protection Board increasing scrutiny on GDPR compliance and NIS2 set to impose stricter cybersecurity requirements, the landscape is shifting rapidly. Add to this the market pressure, as customers increasingly demand certifications as a measure of trustworthiness, and the competitive disadvantage of non-compliance becomes stark.

The gap between where most organizations are and where they need to be is widening. A survey of financial institutions found that 43% do not have a fully automated compliance process, and 57% lack real-time monitoring of compliance metrics. This not only exposes them to regulatory risk but also hinders their ability to respond quickly to new threats or changes in the regulatory environment.

To bridge this gap, financial institutions must adopt compliance automation platforms that can adapt to these challenges. Matproof and Sprinto are two such platforms, but they differ significantly in their approach, capabilities, and value proposition. Understanding these differences is essential for making an informed decision about which tool is best suited to meet the specific needs of an organization.

In the next part of this article, we will delve into the specific features and capabilities of Matproof and Sprinto, examining their strengths and weaknesses in the context of the compliance challenges faced by European financial institutions. We will explore how each platform addresses the core problem of compliance automation, and what implications this has for organizations looking to future-proof their compliance strategies. Stay tuned for a detailed analysis that could be the key to navigating the treacherous waters of compliance in the financial sector.

The Solution Framework

To address the compliance challenges posed by the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and other regulations such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and NIS2, financial institutions must adopt a comprehensive solution framework. This framework should be structured around a step-by-step approach that aligns with regulatory requirements and provides actionable recommendations for implementation.

The first step is to perform a thorough risk assessment. This involves identifying all third-party vendors and internal systems that could pose a risk to operational resilience. Under DORA, particularly, this includes "critical and important entities" as defined by the regulation. Following this, the institution must evaluate the resilience of these entities, as per DORA Art. 5, to determine any potential vulnerabilities that could disrupt operations.

Subsequently, a robust policy development process is essential. Policies must be designed to mitigate the risks identified in the risk assessment phase. These policies should be based on the relevant articles of the regulations mentioned, ensuring they cover aspects such as data protection under GDPR, information security under ISO 27001, and operational resilience under DORA. The aim is to achieve not just compliance but operational excellence. "Good" compliance would entail policies that not only meet the minimum requirements but also proactively enhance the organization's resilience and security posture.

Once policies are in place, the next step is to implement monitoring and auditing mechanisms. This involves regular checks to ensure that all processes are in line with the implemented policies and that any deviations are promptly addressed. These mechanisms should be able to produce evidence of compliance, which is crucial for passing audits and avoiding fines, as seen with the BaFin enforcement notice.

Finally, the solution framework should include a continuous improvement process. This involves regularly reviewing and updating policies, processes, and technologies to adapt to new regulatory requirements and emerging threats.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

There are several common mistakes that organizations make when implementing compliance measures, which often lead to failures and enforcement actions:

1. Inadequate Risk Assessment: Many organizations rush through the risk assessment phase, failing to identify all relevant third parties or internal risks. This oversight can lead to compliance gaps and violations, as seen in the BaFin case where the company did not adequately document ICT third-party risks. To avoid this, organizations must conduct a thorough risk assessment, considering all potential internal and external threats to operational resilience.

2. Lack of Policy Enforcement: Some organizations develop comprehensive policies but fail to enforce them effectively. This can result in non-compliance, as employees or third parties may not follow the policies. Instead, organizations should establish clear enforcement mechanisms, such as regular audits and penalties for non-compliance.

3. Insufficient Evidence of Compliance: Many organizations struggle to produce the necessary evidence to prove their compliance during audits. This can lead to failed audits and subsequent enforcement actions. To address this, organizations should implement robust evidence collection and storage systems that can quickly provide the required documentation during audits.

4. Overreliance on Manual Processes: Some organizations continue to rely heavily on manual processes for compliance, which can be time-consuming and prone to human error. This approach can lead to delays and increased risk of non-compliance. Instead, organizations should consider automating as many compliance processes as possible to increase efficiency and accuracy.

5. Ignoring Continuous Improvement: Lastly, some organizations view compliance as a one-time task rather than an ongoing process. This mindset can lead to outdated policies and processes that no longer meet regulatory requirements. To avoid this, organizations should establish a continuous improvement process that regularly reviews and updates their compliance measures.

Tools and Approaches

When it comes to managing compliance, there are several tools and approaches that organizations can leverage:

1. Manual Approach: The manual approach involves using spreadsheets and checklists to manage compliance. While this approach can work for smaller organizations or less complex compliance requirements, it has several limitations. It is prone to human error, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. However, for small-scale or straightforward compliance needs, a manual approach can be sufficient.

2. Spreadsheet/GRC Approach: Many organizations use spreadsheets or Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) tools to manage compliance. While these tools can help streamline the process, they often have limitations in terms of automation and integration with other systems. They may also struggle to handle complex compliance requirements or large volumes of data. For basic compliance management, a spreadsheet/GRC approach can be effective, but for more complex needs, a more robust solution is necessary.

3. Automated Compliance Platforms: Automated compliance platforms, such as Matproof, offer a more comprehensive solution. These platforms can automate many aspects of compliance, including risk assessment, policy generation, monitoring, and evidence collection. They can also integrate with other systems, such as cloud providers, to streamline data collection and analysis. When selecting an automated compliance platform, organizations should look for features such as AI-powered policy generation, automated evidence collection, and endpoint compliance agents for device monitoring. Additionally, 100% EU data residency is crucial for financial institutions operating within the EU to ensure compliance with data protection regulations.

In conclusion, while manual and spreadsheet/GRC approaches can be used for basic compliance needs, they may not be sufficient for complex or evolving regulatory requirements. Automated compliance platforms offer a more robust solution, providing greater efficiency, accuracy, and scalability. By adopting a comprehensive solution framework and avoiding common mistakes, organizations can enhance their compliance posture and reduce the risk of fines and enforcement actions.

Getting Started: Your Next Steps

With the understanding of the critical aspects that distinguish Matproof from Sprinto in compliance automation, it’s time to outline actionable steps to evaluate and implement a compliance solution for your financial institution. Here’s a five-step action plan to consider this week:

1. Assess Current Compliance Needs: Conduct a review of your current compliance framework. Identify gaps, especially in areas impacted by new regulations like DORA.

2. Comprehensive Research: Dive into official EU and BaFin publications on compliance requirements. Resources like the DORA Impact Assessment and BaFin’s “Compliance Manual” are invaluable.

3. Evaluate Solution Compatibility: Assess if your current GRC tools, if any, meet the demands of DORA. Look for features that offer AI-powered policy generation and automated evidence collection.

4. Consider Data Residency: Given the stringent data protection requirements in Europe, ensure that any solution complies with data residency laws, storing data within the EU.

5. Trial and Consultation: Engage with potential compliance automation platforms for trials or consultations. Consider how they handle multi-lingual policy generation and compliance monitoring.

As for when to seek external help versus handling compliance in-house, consider the complexity of your regulatory obligations and your team’s bandwidth. If maintaining compliance is a core competency, an in-house approach could be viable. However, for specialized and rapidly evolving regulations like DORA, engaging with a specialized solution like Matproof might offer a more efficient and resilient path.

A quick win within the next 24 hours could be to conduct a preliminary assessment of your current compliance documentation. Compare it against the latest DORA regulations and identify areas that require immediate attention.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: How Can I Ensure Compliance Without Sacrificing Operational Efficiency?

Efficiency in compliance doesn’t have to come at the cost of operational speed. Matproof, for instance, streamlines compliance processes through AI-powered policy generation and automated evidence collection, reducing manual efforts and speeding up compliance checks.

Q2: Can Compliance Automation Platforms Handle DORA’s Specific Requirements on ICT Risk Management?

Yes, platforms like Matproof are designed to specifically cater to the ICT risk management requirements under DORA. They provide automated policy generation that addresses DORA’s specific articles, such as Art. 28 on ICT risk management, ensuring compliance without the need for manual policy creation.

Q3: Is There a Risk That Automation Might Miss Some Compliance Requirements?

While automation reduces human error, it’s crucial to choose a solution that keeps pace with regulatory changes. Matproof stays updated with the latest regulations, ensuring comprehensive coverage. Regular audits and updates are also recommended to catch any gaps.

Q4: How Can In-House Teams Benefit from Compliance Automation?

In-house teams can leverage compliance automation for consistent policy enforcement, evidence collection, and real-time compliance monitoring. This not only reduces the workload but also provides actionable insights for continuous compliance improvement.

Q5: What About Data Security and Privacy in Compliance Automation?

Data security is paramount in compliance automation. Matproof ensures 100% EU data residency, hosting all data in Germany. This aligns with GDPR and other European data protection regulations, ensuring that your institution's data is secure and private.

Key Takeaways

• Matproof offers a specialized compliance automation platform tailored for EU financial services, specifically designed to address DORA, SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and NIS2.
• Its AI-powered policy generation and automated evidence collection reduce the time and resources needed for compliance, while ensuring adherence to evolving regulations.
• With 100% EU data residency, Matproof meets stringent data protection requirements.
• The importance of choosing a compliance solution that aligns with your institution’s capabilities and regulatory landscape cannot be overstated.
• For a free assessment of how Matproof can streamline your compliance efforts, visit https://matproof.com/contact.