Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

ConvergePoint Conflict of Interest Disclosure Software vs RSA Archer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

ConvergePoint Conflict of I...
Ranking in GRC
48th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RSA Archer
Ranking in GRC
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
IT Governance (1st), IT Vendor Risk Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the GRC category, the mindshare of ConvergePoint Conflict of Interest Disclosure Software is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RSA Archer is 16.0%, down from 18.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
GRC
 

Featured Reviews

Use ConvergePoint Conflict of Interest Disclosure Software?
Share your opinion
Raviteja Nekkanti - PeerSpot reviewer
Nov 17, 2023
User-friendly, minimal learning curve and good for security assessment
My use case is for security assessment. It's my daily task. I use it for security assessment in Azure. We have tickets where users need to submit details about an application, computer, or server. For Archer, my direct task is to assess the security risk of an application, infrastructure, or…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Fairly highly-priced, especially for smaller companies."
"The price of RSA Archer is good. The price isn't too high considering it is a leading tool in the market."
"I am not 100% familiar with that, especially with their new model. I just know that the way they've licensed per user to scale is good."
"At the higher end of the price scale, but provides better, more accessible functionality and customization than cheaper products."
"The pricing is okay. The licensing costs are very reasonable; it is very affordable to us."
"It is not expensive. It is reasonable. We only pay for the licensing."
"As I am a developer and responsible for providing production support, I do not have personal knowledge of the pricing. However, my colleagues claim that it is very expensive in comparison with other tools."
"The solution's price should be reduced. You only have to pay the license and there are no additional fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which GRC solutions are best for your needs.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Educational Organization
52%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about RSA Archer?
It has various valuable features. For example, showing us if a control aligns with specific standards or frameworks helps us understand it better and verify its compliance.
What needs improvement with RSA Archer?
The user interface needs work. There are many small text boxes, like credit card size's boxes, where we need to input a lot of text. You can't see what you're typing beyond the tiny window, so you ...
What is your primary use case for RSA Archer?
We primarily use the system control module and specific IT control models for ongoing risk assessment activities. We use it on a day-to-day basis.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Archer
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Visit http://www.convergepoint.com/featured-customers to view a partial list of our current customers.
T-Systems, Bridge Point, Equifax, First Data, Global Imaging Company, Manulife Financial
Find out what your peers are saying about RSA, OneTrust, AuditBoard and others in GRC. Updated: November 2024.
815,854 professionals have used our research since 2012.