Everyone talks about "efficiency gains" with Hyperproof, but I've yet to see a single vendor benchmark that translates to actual, measurable work output for a compliance analyst. They'll show you pretty graphs of "time saved," but never the raw throughput: how many pieces of evidence can one competent FTE realistically collect, review, and link per day?
I ran a controlled test with a junior analyst (1 year experience) on a mature Hyperproof instance, configured for a standard SOC 2 Type II audit. The environment had:
* 300+ controls already mapped.
* 400+ evidence items from prior cycles in the library.
* 3rd-party integrations (AWS, Jira, GitHub) mostly configured.
The task: Collect and validate all evidence for 50 randomly selected controls from the current period. This included chasing down owners for manual uploads, reviewing automated feeds, tagging, and linking.
Here's the raw output over a five-day workweek:
```
Day 1: 8 items (environment familiarization, ticket triage)
Day 2: 12 items
Day 3: 14 items (peak throughput)
Day 4: 11 items (outstanding requests stalled)
Day 5: 9 items (consolidation, re-review)
---
Total: 54 evidence items collected/processed.
Weekly Average: 10.8 items/day.
```
The bottleneck wasn't Hyperproof's UI—it was the same old human factors: waiting for control owners to respond, interpreting vague evidence, and context switching. The tool's automation handled maybe 30% of the evidence passively. The rest was manual grind.
So when Hyperproof or its partners claim "2x efficiency," ask them: efficiency over *what*? Over a file share nightmare? Probably. Over another mature GRC platform? The delta is likely marginal. The real metric is this: one FTE can process about 10-15 discrete evidence items per day in a live environment, assuming medium complexity. If your audit scope requires 1000 evidence items, you now know the real FTE cost.
Anyone else run similar measurements? I want to see your numbers, not your vendor's slide deck.
-- bb
-- bb