Questionnaire, ratings, and certification-based risk tier.
Compare / Third-party risk management
TPRM scores vendors. Valty ties vendor risk to your EBITDA.
TPRM platforms assess supplier and vendor security posture through questionnaires, ratings data, and compliance certifications. Valty connects that supplier evidence to your internal control chain, financial exposure model, and board-ready proof artifact.
Connect supplier evidence to ValtyVendor evidence → shared exposure model → board proof.
Valty consumes supplier evidence from TPRM systems; it does not run vendor assessments.
Legacy archetype
What a tprm / vendor risk management workflow does — and where it stops.
TPRM / vendor risk management workflow
- Source
- Workflow archetype — no specific vendor named
- Confidence
- Description based on published methodology patterns
- Freshness
- Reviewed at design-partner stage
What Valty adds
- Source
- Evidence-to-proof layer above the existing workflow
- Confidence
- Design-partner stage — scope per source coverage
- Freshness
- Reviewed per design-partner cohort
What Valty does not replace
- Source
- The tprm / vendor risk management workflow workflow itself
- Confidence
- Valty complements, not substitutes
- Freshness
- Boundary reviewed per product change
Claim discipline on this page
- Source
- No fabricated competitor metrics or named vendors
- Confidence
- Comparison is archetype-to-Valty, not brand-to-Valty
- Freshness
- Reviewed before publication
The TPRM / vendor risk management workflow produces output without a proof chain.
A vendor assessment platform that collects questionnaire responses, ingests external ratings signals, and tracks certification status. The output is a vendor risk score or tiered rating. It answers "how risky is this vendor?" but does not connect vendor risk to your internal exposure, financial materiality, or a proof artifact for the IC or board.
Valty reads the output and connects it to internal evidence.
TPRM evidence enters Valty as a source signal. It is normalized into an evidence object with owner, freshness, and confidence — the same structure as internal controls and findings.
Evidence becomes a financial estimate with visible assumptions.
The FAIR-style exposure model consumes the connected evidence. Every estimate shows method, confidence band, and source coverage — not just a number.
The claim leaves as a proof artifact, not a dashboard screenshot.
Board packs, proof cards, and IC briefs export with source, confidence, freshness, and blocked-claim state. Claims that are stale or unsupported are labeled before they leave the platform.
Evaluation rubric
Where Valty wins and why.
Each dimension is the thing a PE operating partner, CISO, or CFO needs from a security workflow that a legacy tprm / vendor risk management workflow cannot provide alone. No fabricated competitor claim. No unnamed competitor score. Design partner
DimensionTPRM / vendor risk management workflowValtyClaim note
EBITDA / dollar translationVendor risk is expressed as a tier or score. The financial consequence of a third-party incident is not connected to the vendor's score.Supplier evidence feeds the same FAIR-style financial model as internal controls. The financial delta of a high-risk supplier is visible in the same exposure view as internal findings.Design-partner stage — supplier connector scope depends on evidence sources available (questionnaires, ratings feeds, contract artifacts).
Board-ready proof artifactA vendor risk register or compliance report. Useful for procurement teams; not designed for board communication or IC briefing.Supplier evidence is included in the board proof pack. Claims about third-party risk carry source, confidence, and freshness the same way internal control claims do.Supplier evidence freshness depends on assessment cadence. Stale vendor evidence blocks the supplier claim before export.
PE hold-period workflowVendor risk assessments are typically per-portfolio-company and point-in-time. Cross-portfolio supplier concentration risk is not a native view.Common suppliers across portfolio companies surface in the portfolio command view. Concentration exposure is visible at the fund level without re-running per-company assessments.Design-partner stage — cross-portfolio supplier concentration requires multi-company tenant access.
Method transparencyQuestionnaire-based scoring methodology is platform-defined. The link between a vendor's score and a specific business consequence is not shown.The financial estimate from a vendor risk finding carries the same FAIR-style assumption set as internal findings. The CFO and IC can inspect the methodology before the claim publishes.Valty does not replace vendor assessment programs; it adds a financial and proof layer on the output.
Claim disciplineVendor scores are updated on assessment cycle. Between cycles, the score is stale but typically still presented as current. Freshness is not a visible claim property.Supplier evidence carries freshness. If vendor attestations are older than the evidence threshold, the claim is flagged or blocked before export. Assessment lag is visible, not hidden.Evidence freshness thresholds are configurable per supplier tier in Valty.
Proof matrix
What this comparison page can and cannot claim
Every comparison statement carries its source and limitation. No competitor is named. No fabricated outcome is presented.
ClaimSourceConfidenceFreshness
Archetype comparisonPublished workflow patterns — no specific vendorAccurate at design-partner stageReviewed before publication
Financial model capabilityValty product — design-partner stageIllustrative — depends on source coverage per tenantReviewed per design-partner cohort
Proof artifact capabilityValty product — design-partner stageScope calibrated through early-access engagementsReviewed per product change
Named competitor resultsNot published — no fabricated competitor claimBlockedNot applicable
Next step
See how Valty sits above your existing tprm workflow.
Design-partner engagements start with source-system mapping. Bring the tprm output you already have.