No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Diligent One Platform (formerly Highbond) vs RSA Archer comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 1, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Diligent One Platform (form...
Ranking in GRC
23rd
Ranking in IT Governance
7th
Ranking in IT Vendor Risk Management
21st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
RSA Archer
Ranking in GRC
1st
Ranking in IT Governance
1st
Ranking in IT Vendor Risk Management
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
42
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the GRC category, the mindshare of Diligent One Platform (formerly Highbond) is 2.0%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RSA Archer is 5.9%, down from 17.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
GRC Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
RSA Archer5.9%
Diligent One Platform (formerly Highbond)2.0%
Other92.1%
GRC
 

Featured Reviews

WW
Data Analyst at Rhythex
Good automation and analytics, but is costly
The report model was our main concern. I believe currently the solution uses a third party for the reporting. As part of a consulting firm, one of the challenges we face is the difficulty in producing reports that meet the expectations of our clients and customers. It would be beneficial if the focus could be shifted toward improving the reporting aspect. The impact report is a crucial aspect, as we only have one opportunity to create it. Galvanize HighBond can improve by generating more impact reports post-project, and allowing access to the reports using a web version, which would greatly benefit us. The cost of the solution is expensive and needs improvement.
CJ
Information Security Specialist at Dubai Health Authority
Centralized management strengthens compliance with good look and feel
From my perspective as a customer and end user, Archer has an impressive look and feel, but the most adaptive feature is its ease of configuration which helps to enhance our process according to our maturity. It's more about our organization getting centralized with an integrated approach that focuses on risk governance and compliance. When can provide a detailed dashboards to management with the details of risks from top-down or bottom-up prioritizing actions based on its criticality or necessity. This allows us to show end users and management where the issues lie and effectively demonstrate accountability and visibility in compliance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In one year we were able to accomplish what we could not in our 3 year Archer contract, and we did it with half the consulting services and one-third the administrators."
"We have far more visibility into our compliance, risks and controls over the areas we are managing versus accepting risk, and Rsam has also been extremely helpful with the annual audits we receive from our regulators."
"The most valuable feature is automation."
"RSA is a very rich application, and I like its adaptive suggestion where, based on your users and the class of data, it can actually recommend you the proper control to choose."
"This is a good solution compared to others in the market because it is more secure."
"The solution has helped our organization manage our internal and external activities."
"Community content in the Archer Exchange is very valuable."
"The solution has improved my organization by having everything combined to a single platform."
"The most valuable part of the product is the ease-of-use and the opportunity to create custom security applications easily."
"Among the most valuable features of this solution is the easy implementation and the degree of automation that it offers."
"RSA Archer is a good tool and I have found performing the application, ISMS, and TPRM assessments beneficial."
 

Cons

"The cost of the solution is expensive and needs improvement."
"While they don't need as much consulting to get the product implemented, I do wish they had more available."
"Archer has some performance issues when working on a single server."
"The solution as a whole could be simplified."
"Data feeds have always been a big headache for us because there is no feature to let us know if a feed has not run or has failed."
"When we have to do formulas or some other type of calculation in Archer, it sometimes doesn't work correctly. The fields don't display right, and we have to contact RSA Archer support to fix things. I think the calculation components are a bit complicated."
"It would be useful for customers if COBIT 2019 could be translated into different languages."
"The financial area of RSA Archer has room for improvement."
"If you need to integrate the RSA products with another SIEM solution, then it doesn't work properly."
"The product is expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I give the cost of the solution a six out of ten."
"The solution is not at all a cheap product."
"The pricing is okay. The licensing costs are very reasonable; it is very affordable to us."
"The solution's price should be reduced. You only have to pay the license and there are no additional fees."
"The price of the solution is very affordable."
"The initial purchase is cheap. You pay a nominal price to start then renew the license annually. You also must buy a license for each module. I'm not too fond of that aspect of the licensing model. You buy the elephant and then spend more money to feed the elephant."
"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."
"RSA Archer's price is justifiable and not as expensive, compared to ServiceNow. I have heard that the licensing for ServiceNow is much more expensive. I'm unaware whether there are any additional costs after licensing fees."
"I am not sure about other companies, but it's quite expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which GRC solutions are best for your needs.
894,998 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Insurance Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise25
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with RSA Archer?
While it provides benefits in terms of security, the pricing is a bit higher than customers typically expect. It would be helpful if RSA Archer had the capability for two-way integration because, i...
What is your primary use case for RSA Archer?
Regarding the compliance, risk, and governance tools, I am comfortable discussing the tools in the GRC category. The specific module from ServiceNow is the ServiceNow Compliance, Risk, and Governan...
What advice do you have for others considering RSA Archer?
I have been in touch with about three companies who use RSA Archer actively in the compliance area. These companies use RSA Archer for nearly all purposes, including governance, internal risk, and ...
 

Also Known As

Rsam GRC, HighBond, HighBond by Galvanize , Diligent GRC Platform
Archer
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CNA Insurance
T-Systems, Bridge Point, Equifax, First Data, Global Imaging Company, Manulife Financial
Find out what your peers are saying about Diligent One Platform (formerly Highbond) vs. RSA Archer and other solutions. Updated: May 2026.
894,998 professionals have used our research since 2012.