What is the primary objective of **SOC 2**?

**The primary objective of SOC 2 is to provide independent assurance that a service organization's controls meet the Trust Services Criteria (TSC) for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.** Developed by the AICPA, SOC 2 evaluates systems handling customer data, with Security (CC1-CC9) as the mandatory common criteria. Type 2 reports assess design and operating effectiveness over 3-12 months, delivering credibility for SaaS and cloud providers.

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **SOC 2**?

**No organization is legally required to comply with SOC 2, as it is a voluntary AICPA framework; however, service organizations processing customer data face professional mandates from enterprise clients.** It targets SaaS, cloud, fintech, and data processors, where Fortune 500 buyers embed SOC 2 Type 2 in RFPs and MSAs, disqualifying non-compliant vendors during VRM assessments.

Does **SOC 2** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**Yes, SOC 2 requires an external audit by an independent AICPA-accredited CPA firm to issue Type 1 or Type 2 attestation reports.** Type 1 verifies control design at a point in time; Type 2 tests operating effectiveness over a period via sampling, walkthroughs, and evidence review, ensuring unqualified opinions without internal certifications.

How often should an assessment for **SOC 2** be performed?

**SOC 2 Type 2 assessments should be performed annually, covering a 3-12 month monitoring period with bridged audits using prior 9 months plus new 3 months.** Bridge letters from management extend validity up to 3 months between reports, maintaining continuous assurance for stakeholders.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **SOC 2**?

**Non-compliance with SOC 2 results in lost enterprise deals, extended sales cycles by 3-6 months, and heightened breach liability under SLAs or laws like CCPA.** Without Type 2 reports, vendors face RFP disqualification, 20-50% CAC increases, reputational damage, and investor scrutiny in diligence.

An **SOC 2** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**Yes, SOC 2 controls map extensively to frameworks like ISO 27001 (80% overlap), NIST CSF, and others via AICPA spreadsheets.** Common Criteria (CC1-CC9) align with ISO Annex A controls, enabling shared evidence for multi-compliance without dual audits.

What is the first step to begin implementing **SOC 2**?

**The first step for SOC 2 implementation is a scoping exercise and gap analysis against Trust Services Criteria, engaging a CPA for readiness assessment.** Define in-scope systems, data flows, and TSC (starting with mandatory Security), inventory assets, and prioritize 50-100 controls using tools like Vanta.

What is the primary objective of **SOX**?

**The primary objective of SOX is to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures under federal securities laws.** Enacted July 30, 2002, following scandals like Enron and WorldCom, SOX establishes PCAOB oversight (Title I), auditor independence (Title II), executive certifications (**Section 302**), and ICFR assessments (**Section 404**).

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with **SOX**?

**SOX applies to all U.S.-listed public companies, including foreign private issuers, and their PCAOB-registered auditors.** Section 404(a) mandates management ICFR assessments for issuers under Securities Exchange Act Sections 12 or 15(d); 404(b) requires auditor attestation except for non-accelerated filers (public float under $75 million) and EGCs (up to 5 years post-IPO unless revenues exceed $1.235 billion).

Does **SOX** require an external audit or third-party certification?

**Yes, SOX Section 404(b) requires external auditor attestation on management's ICFR assessment per PCAOB standards for applicable issuers.** Non-accelerated filers and EGCs are exempt from 404(b) but must perform 404(a) management assessments; auditors conduct inspections annually for firms auditing >100 issuers.

How often should an assessment for **SOX** be performed?

**SOX requires annual management assessments of ICFR effectiveness under Section 404(a), reported in Form 10-K.** Quarterly CEO/CFO certifications occur under Section 302 for 10-Qs; continuous monitoring supports ongoing readiness, with testing phases including interim and year-end operating effectiveness reviews.

What are the consequences of non-compliance with **SOX**?

**Non-compliance with SOX triggers civil penalties, criminal fines up to $5 million, and imprisonment up to 20 years for willful false certifications under Section 906.** Section 802 imposes up to 20 years for document tampering; additional risks include SEC enforcement, restatements, delisting, and higher capital costs.

An **SOX** be mapped to other international frameworks?

**No, these SOX FAQs do not address mappings to other frameworks.** SOX stands as a standalone U.S. federal statute with unique PCAOB, SEC, and ICFR requirements.

What is the first step to begin implementing **SOX**?

**The first step for SOX implementation is a top-down risk assessment to scope material financial accounts, processes, and assertions per PCAOB AS 2201.** This identifies key controls, entity-level controls, and ITGCs, using COSO framework for documentation and walkthroughs.

SOC 2 vs SOX | GRADUM

Standards Comparison

SOC 2

Voluntary

2010

AICPA framework for service organization security controls

SOX

Mandatory

2002

U.S. federal law mandating internal financial controls

Quick Verdict

SOC 2 offers voluntary trust assurance for service providers handling customer data, while SOX mandates strict financial controls for public companies. Organizations adopt SOC 2 to win enterprise clients; SOX ensures investor protection via CEO/CFO accountability.

Cybersecurity / Trust

SOC 2

System and Organization Controls 2

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

High

Implementation Time

6-12 months

Key Features

Trust Services Criteria with mandatory Security foundation
Type 2 audits prove operating effectiveness over 3-12 months
Flexible scoping for service organizations' data handling
AICPA CPA-attested reports build stakeholder trust
Maps efficiently to ISO 27001, NIST, GDPR frameworks

Financial Reporting

SOX

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Cost

€€€€

Complexity

Medium

Implementation Time

18-24 months

Key Features

CEO/CFO personal certification of financial reports
ICFR management assessment and auditor attestation
PCAOB oversight of public company auditors
Auditor independence and rotation requirements
Criminal penalties for false certifications

Detailed Analysis

A comprehensive look at the specific requirements, scope, and impact of each standard.

SOC 2 Details

What It Is

SOC 2 (System and Organization Controls 2) is a voluntary attestation framework developed by the AICPA for service organizations. It evaluates controls based on Trust Services Criteria (TSC), focusing on security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy of customer data. The approach is principles-based, emphasizing design (Type 1) and operating effectiveness (Type 2) over 3-12 months.

Key Components

Five TSC: Security (mandatory, CC1-CC9 common criteria), plus optional Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy.
50-100 controls mapped to criteria, built on COSO principles.
CPA-attested reports with auditor opinion, management assertion, system description, and test results.

Why Organizations Use It

Accelerates enterprise sales, reduces due diligence friction.
Mitigates breach risks, enhances resilience.
Builds trust with stakeholders, unlocks markets like SaaS/cloud.
Voluntary but market-driven; overlaps with ISO 27001, NIST, GDPR.

Implementation Overview

Phased: gap analysis, control deployment, 3-month monitoring, CPA audit. Targets SaaS/cloud providers; scalable for startups to enterprises via automation (Vanta, Drata). Annual Type 2 recertification.

SOX Details

What It Is

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) is a U.S. federal regulation enacted post-Enron scandals to enhance corporate accountability. It mandates accurate financial disclosures, internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR), and auditor oversight via a risk-based, control-focused approach using frameworks like COSO.

Key Components

**Three pillarsPCAOB oversight (Title I), auditor independence (Title II), executive certifications and ICFR (Titles III/IV).
Core sections: 302/906 (CEO/CFO certifications), 404 (ICFR assessment/attestation), 409 (real-time disclosures).
Built on COSO principles; no fixed controls, emphasizes key controls like ITGCs.
Compliance model: annual management reports, auditor attestation for most filers.

Why Organizations Use It

Mandatory for U.S. public companies; protects investors, reduces fraud.
Strategic benefits: governance maturity, lower capital costs, M&A readiness.
Builds trust via transparency, operational efficiency through automation.

Implementation Overview

Phased: scoping, documentation, testing, monitoring using top-down risk assessment.
Applies to public issuers; scales by size (exemptions for smaller filers).
Requires external audits for 404(b); ongoing continuous monitoring.

Key Differences

Aspect	SOC 2	SOX
Scope	Security, availability, confidentiality, privacy for customer data	Internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) for public companies
Industry	SaaS, cloud, tech service providers; all sizes	All U.S. public companies and listed foreign issuers
Nature	Voluntary AICPA audit framework	Mandatory U.S. federal law with PCAOB enforcement
Testing	Type 1/2 audits by CPA; 3-12 months operating effectiveness	Annual ICFR assessment; external auditor attestation
Penalties	No legal penalties; market disqualification, lost deals	Criminal fines, imprisonment, SEC enforcement actions

Scope

SOC 2

Security, availability, confidentiality, privacy for customer data

SOX

Internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) for public companies

Industry

SOC 2

SaaS, cloud, tech service providers; all sizes

SOX

All U.S. public companies and listed foreign issuers

Nature

SOC 2

Voluntary AICPA audit framework

SOX

Mandatory U.S. federal law with PCAOB enforcement

Testing

SOC 2

Type 1/2 audits by CPA; 3-12 months operating effectiveness

SOX

Annual ICFR assessment; external auditor attestation

Penalties

SOC 2

No legal penalties; market disqualification, lost deals

SOX

Criminal fines, imprisonment, SEC enforcement actions

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about SOC 2 and SOX

SOC 2 FAQ

SOX FAQ

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

The SOC Maturity Roadmap: A 5-Step Blueprint for Scaling from Ad-Hoc to Optimized Operations

Unlock SOC excellence with our 5-step maturity roadmap. Compare SOC-CMM, NIST CSF, and CMMC frameworks to scale from ad-hoc to automated operations. Start your

Asset-Backed Issuers and SEC Cybersecurity Rules: Applicability, Disclosures, and Compliance Roadmap

How SEC cybersecurity rules apply to asset-backed issuers (ABS): Form 10-D disclosures, ABS-EE risk management, Inline XBRL tagging, exemptions. Roadmap for tru

NIST CSF 2.0: Key Enhancements and How They Address Evolving Cyber Threats

Explore NIST CSF 2.0 updates: Govern function, supply chain security, SME playbooks for ransomware & AI threats. Boost your cyber defenses now!

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Transform your compliance journey with our AI-powered assessment platform

Assess your organization's maturity across multiple standards and regulations including ISO 27001, DORA, NIS2, NIST, GDPR, and hundreds more. Get actionable insights and track your progress with collaborative, AI-powered evaluations.

100+ Standards & Regulations

AI-Powered Insights

Collaborative Assessments

Actionable Recommendations

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

HIPAA vs HITRUST CSF

Compare HIPAA vs HITRUST CSF: HIPAA enforces privacy/security/breach rules for PHI; HITRUST delivers certifiable assurance harmonizing 60+ standards. Boost compliance now.

ISO 26000 vs ISO 21001

Compare ISO 26000 vs ISO 21001: Guidance on social responsibility meets certifiable educational management systems. Discover key differences, benefits, and implementation strategies now.

IEC 62443 vs MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)

Compare IEC 62443 vs MLPS 2.0: Global OT cybersecurity framework meets China's graded protection regime. Discover differences, compliance tips, and strategies for secure IACS. (152 characters)

SOC 2

SOX

Quick Verdict

SOC 2

Key Features

SOX

Key Features

Detailed Analysis

SOC 2 Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

SOX Details

What It Is

Key Components

Why Organizations Use It

Implementation Overview

Key Differences

Scope

Industry

Nature

Testing

Penalties

Frequently Asked Questions

SOC 2 FAQ

What is the primary objective of SOC 2?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with SOC 2?

Does SOC 2 require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for SOC 2 be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with SOC 2?

An SOC 2 be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing SOC 2?

SOX FAQ

What is the primary objective of SOX?

Who is legally or professionally required to comply with SOX?

Does SOX require an external audit or third-party certification?

How often should an assessment for SOX be performed?

What are the consequences of non-compliance with SOX?

An SOX be mapped to other international frameworks?

What is the first step to begin implementing SOX?

You Might also be Interested in These Articles...

The SOC Maturity Roadmap: A 5-Step Blueprint for Scaling from Ad-Hoc to Optimized Operations

Asset-Backed Issuers and SEC Cybersecurity Rules: Applicability, Disclosures, and Compliance Roadmap

NIST CSF 2.0: Key Enhancements and How They Address Evolving Cyber Threats

Run Maturity Assessments with GRADUM

Check out these other Gradum.io Standards Comparison Pages

HIPAA vs HITRUST CSF

ISO 26000 vs ISO 21001

IEC 62443 vs MLPS 2.0 (Multi-Level Protection Scheme)