Drata vs CVD Portal
Continuous control monitoring and multi-framework compliance automation for security teams. How does Drata compare to CVD Portal for an EU manufacturer subject to the Cyber Resilience Act?
- Headquarters
- San Diego, United States
- Category
- Compliance automation platform
- Pricing model
- Annual subscription priced on request, scaled by company size and the number of frameworks enabled.
How they compare on CRA-critical features
Five differences that decide whether an organisation-level compliance platform can carry a product obligation under Regulation (EU) 2024/2847.
Where Drata is strong
- +Cross-framework control mapping. One control satisfies its equivalent requirement in several frameworks at once, which is genuinely efficient for organisations carrying multiple certifications.
- +Automated evidence collection and continuous monitoring across cloud, identity and endpoint systems.
- +Broad published framework set including SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, PCI DSS, GDPR, HIPAA, CMMC, NIS 2 and DORA.
- +A published EU CRA framework, added in September 2026, that maps the Annex I essential requirements to Drata's common controls, so evidence collected for other frameworks also counts toward the CRA.
- +Risk register, vendor review and personnel compliance workflows in the same platform.
Where it is not a CRA fit
- !The CRA framework maps Annex I to organisation-level control families. Annex I Part I is an applicability decision per product, where each requirement is either implemented with a reference or marked not applicable with a justification that has to survive review.
- !No published feature for Annex III and Annex IV classification, Annex VII technical documentation, the EU Declaration of Conformity or CE marking.
- !The CRA framework helps a team define operations around the Article 14 reporting clock. There is no advertised filing to the ENISA Single Reporting Platform or national CSIRTs, and no whitelabel intake portal for the Article 13 single point of contact.
- !Evidence freshness is tracked against audit cycles rather than against a product's support period, which is the window Article 31(2) ties technical documentation to.
The CRA gap
Drata's strength is collapsing many frameworks onto one set of organisational controls, and its CRA framework, added in September 2026, applies that model to Annex I. The CRA does not fully fit that shape. Its unit is the product, its applicability decisions are made against Annex I Part I requirement by requirement, its output is a technical file plus a signed Declaration of Conformity rather than an auditor's report, and its Article 14 clock starts at 24 hours from awareness of an actively exploited vulnerability. A manufacturer running Drata for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 still has all of that ahead of it.
Why teams pick CVD Portal for CRA
Five reasons EU manufacturers choose CVD Portal over Drata.
- 1
Built on the product as the unit of compliance, which is the shape the regulation actually has.
- 2
Annex I Part I applicability table with a mandatory justification on every requirement marked not applicable, ready for a notified body or an authority to read.
- 3
Technical documentation, EU Declaration of Conformity and CE marking checklist generated from the same product record rather than assembled by hand.
- 4
Article 14 timers at 24h, 72h and final, with an SRP-ready submission package on Reporting and higher plans.
- 5
Evidence validity windows and documentation review cycles tied to the product's support period, per Article 31(2).
Frequently asked
Does Drata have a CRA framework?
Can Drata's control mapping be reused for the CRA?
Do we need both platforms?
How does CVD Portal handle evidence going stale?
Where does CVD Portal stop?
Run CRA conformity alongside the compliance stack you already have
Classification, Annex I, the technical file and Article 14 filing in one place. The Article 13 baseline is €0/month and no card is required to start.