Noru fits when
You carry privacy and EU regulatory obligations alongside security frameworks — GDPR Article 30, DPIAs, NIS2, DORA, the EU AI Act — and want them run from one control library with EU data residency.
Comparison
Noru vs Drata: platform comparison
Drata is profiled from its own public positioning, then compared with Noru where both can be evidenced. Unsourceable claims are left out.
What Drata says it does
Drata is a compliance automation platform in the same category as Noru, built around continuous control monitoring and automated evidence collection across connected systems.
Drata does not publish prices. Its pricing page carries no tiers or figures and routes buyers to contact sales, indicating a quote-based model determined through a sales conversation — the same commercial approach Noru takes.
Beyond that, we have deliberately not characterised Drata's framework catalogue, onboarding time or automation depth here, because we could not source those claims from Drata's own pages at the time of review.
Decision
Which one fits
A quick way to evaluate which platform matches your compliance goals.
Drata fits when
You are buying primarily on security compliance automation and want a large, established vendor in that specific category. Evaluate both against your own framework list.
Compared on what we can evidence
| Feature | Noru | Drata |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Platform plus capability packages, scoped per deployment | Not published |
| Published framework catalogue | 30+ frameworks, mapped once and reused | Not stated |
| Privacy records from source code | Article 30 records derived from code and CI, using an open privacy taxonomy | Not stated |
| Data residency | EU data residency | Not stated |
| AI client access (MCP) | Model Context Protocol server for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and others | Not stated |
Where Noru is differentiated
Privacy records of processing derived from source code and CI rather than authored by hand
EU regulatory depth — NIS2, DORA, CRA and the EU AI Act alongside SOC 2 and ISO 27001
EU data residency by default, with DPA and SLA in every deployment
A Model Context Protocol server so AI clients can query the live compliance programme
How we compared
Statements about Drata are taken from Drata's own public pages, listed under Primary sources below.
We have not asserted anything about Drata's framework count, setup time, automation depth or user experience, because those could not be sourced publicly at the time of review.
Capability claims about Noru are our own and are not attributed to Drata.
Claims were last checked on 2026-08-19. If something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
How much does Drata cost compared with Noru?
Neither publishes prices. Drata's pricing page routes to contact sales; Noru licenses the platform plus the capability packages your obligations require, scoped per deployment, with a written quote after a demo. Treat any specific figure you see quoted for either as unofficial.
What is the main difference between Noru and Drata?
Noru's differentiation is privacy and EU regulatory depth: Article 30 records and a data map derived from source code, plus NIS2, DORA and EU AI Act coverage, with EU data residency. On core security compliance automation both platforms compete directly, so compare them against your specific framework list.
Is Noru a Drata alternative for SOC 2 and ISO 27001?
Yes, Noru supports both, mapped through one control library so evidence collected for one framework counts toward the other. Whether it is the better choice depends on whether privacy and EU regulations sit alongside them in your obligations.
Can we migrate from Drata to Noru?
Yes. Evidence is collected from your own systems rather than locked in the incumbent, so migration is largely reconnecting integrations and re-mapping controls. We will scope it with you during a demo.
Do you train AI models on our compliance data?
No. Customer data is never used to train, fine-tune or evaluate any model — Noru's or a provider's — and every AI feature runs under zero data retention terms, so the model provider returns the output and keeps no copy of the prompt or response. Both commitments are contractual, in Section 4.6 of our Terms and Sections 3.5–3.6 of our DPA. We have not characterised Drata's position here because we only publish competitor claims we can trace to a public source — ask them for the same commitments in writing.
Why does this page not compare more features?
Because we only publish competitor claims we can trace to a public source. Rather than fill a table with assertions about Drata's onboarding or automation that we cannot evidence, we left them out. We would rather the comparison be short and correct.
Primary sources
Every claim about Drata on this page comes from their own public pages, last checked on . Competitor products change — if something here is out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
See Noru against your own systems
A 45-minute walkthrough against your frameworks, your integrations and your evidence — and an honest answer on whether Noru is the right fit.