Governance Intelligence Infrastructure

The alternative to the platforms that made governance work harder than it needed to

Regulation is not the burden. Fragmentation is.

Ten platforms, compared on the four things that decide whether a governance programme holds together: what it covers, what it runs on, where it starts, and where the evidence ends up.

Book a working session

Start with one workflow. Add the next without rebuilding anything.

In brief

SustainGRC is governance intelligence infrastructure. Governance, sustainability, risk management, internal audit, and cyber and business resilience run on one data model across 40+ modules. Organisations move from established GRC platforms when they want those five domains on the same record rather than reconciled between products, and when they want one workflow operating before the wider programme is scoped.

Three things that do not change between domains

One data model, five domains

Governance, sustainability, risk management, internal audit, and cyber and business resilience sit on the same record. Not five products behind one login, and not a carbon module bought in and stitched to the side. When a control changes, every domain that depends on it sees the change.

40+ modules · one schema · one audit trail

Quality by design

Quality assurance is part of the workflow rather than a review that happens afterwards. Evidence is captured at the point of work, ownership is explicit, and the record carries its own provenance — so an assessment that was defensible on the day it was made is still defensible when it is challenged.

Evidence captured in the workflow, not reconstructed for the audit

Built by practitioners

Designed by chief audit executives, risk leaders, sustainability and assurance practitioners who have run these functions and been questioned by an audit committee. The vocabulary is the buyer's own — risk register, control testing, business continuity plan, board reporting.

Practitioner-designed workflows, reviewed by practising specialists

One record, four readers

Silos are rarely a culture problem. They are usually a data problem wearing a culture costume: four functions maintaining four versions of the same control because no system lets them share one. On a single model, collaboration stops being a meeting and becomes the default state of the record.

First line

Owns the control and records the work where the work happens.

Second line

Sees the same record, adds challenge, and never re-requests evidence that already exists.

Internal audit

Tests against the record rather than against a spreadsheet exported three weeks ago.

Board and audit committee

Reads a report that traces back to the underlying evidence in one step.

See how we compare

Select a platform. Every comparison uses the same four dimensions, drawn from published product documentation.

SustainGRC as an alternative to MetricStream

Established enterprise GRC

What MetricStream is known for. Long-established enterprise GRC with deep risk and compliance functionality and a large installed base.

What buyers ask us for next. Teams evaluating alternatives typically ask for sustainability and resilience on the same record as risk and audit, and for a first workflow that is live before the wider programme is scoped.

SustainGRC compared with MetricStream across domain coverage, data model, starting point and evidence.
Dimension	MetricStream	SustainGRC
Domain coverage	Risk, compliance and audit as the core estate; sustainability addressed through separate products or partners.	Governance, sustainability, risk, internal audit, and cyber and business resilience on one model.
Data model	Module-oriented, with mapping between modules.	Single schema. One control, one owner, one evidence chain across every domain.
Starting point	Programme-scale implementations are the norm.	One workflow. The next is added without rebuilding the first.
Where the evidence lives	In the module that captured it.	On the record, with provenance attached and readable by every domain that needs it.