Archer

4.1/5

“Great for enterprise complexity, less suited for simple use-cases”

At our large global organisation managing risk across dozens of business units and geographies, Archer fitted well. If we were a smaller company we may have struggled with features we didn’t need.

Pros : Archer is built for complexity, large enterprises and many risk domains; its breadth is a real strength.

Cons : Only for enterprise orgs.

Switched from : Ricago CMS

Reason to switch : We switched because our previous smaller tool was hitting limits and we needed a platform that could handle complex global risk; Archer gave that, albeit with higher complexity.

4.5/5

“Implementation took longer than expected”

We embarked on a full GRC rollout with Archer. It did deliver the breadth we needed (risk, compliance, audit) but the project timeline stretched. We underestimated how much process redesign and training were needed.

Pros : The platform is very capable and covers many domains, as users say.

Cons : While the solution was manageable, it was not a sustainable platform for my team.

Switched from : NAVEX

Reason to switch : We switched because our old GRC tool was easy to implement but couldn’t scale; we accepted longer rollout in exchange for a platform that could scale with us.

4.6/5

“Vendor risk module worked well, but cost is high”

In my vendor-risk team we used Archer’s vendor risk module to assess suppliers, issue question¬naires, track remediation and monitor controls. It worked well. But the licensing and support cost was higher than alternative tools we looked at.

Pros : Many large organisations use Archer for third-party risk management, vendor risk and supply-chain risk.

Cons : Some feedback points to high cost and high resource requirement, especially for smaller modules.

Switched from : Hyperproof

Reason to switch : We switched because our previous vendor?risk tool lacked other GRC domains; Archer let us consolidate across vendor risk, audit and compliance though at higher cost.