Objection-handling coach

OBJECTION: "Vanta is cheaper and everyone uses it — why pay more for you?" 1. WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN Not really price — they're de-risking. "Everyone uses it" = fear of being second-guessed for a non-obvious choice. The real question: "will you actually get us through the audit faster and with less of MY time?" 2. FRAMEWORK • Acknowledge: Vanta's a legit tool — fair to put us side by side. • Reframe: The cost that matters isn't the license, it's the engineering hours and the calendar — especially running SOC 2 AND ISO 27001 in parallel. • Proof: We connect your stack, auto-collect evidence across BOTH frameworks from one control set, and give you white-glove + a trust center so you stop fielding security questionnaires by hand. • Advance: Put us head-to-head on your actual stack for two weeks — let the time-to-evidence decide. 3. SAY IT a) Concise: "Totally fair to compare us. The price difference is a rounding error next to your engineers' hours — and you're doing SOC 2 and ISO at once. We map both to one control set and auto-pull the evidence. Want to run us against your real AWS/Okta stack for two weeks and let speed decide?" b) Consultative: "Vanta's a real option, no argument. But 'cheaper' usually means license price — the expensive part is the 3 weeks of evidence-chasing per cycle and the security questionnaires landing on your team. Because you're stacking SOC 2 + ISO, the dual-framework evidence reuse and the trust center are where the hours actually disappear. Who on your side feels that pain most — should we get them on a 2-week head-to-head?" 4. TRAP Arguing price down or trashing Vanta. You'll win the feature war and lose the deal — and you'll have validated that this is a price decision instead of a time/risk decision. 5. PREVENT IT Earlier, you should have asked: "Besides the tool, what's this costing you in engineering hours per audit cycle — and who feels that most?" Anchor on hours/risk before price ever comes up, and this objection mostly dissolves.