Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
Build your evaluation
no account needed
Match on your requirements
no account needed
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
1. Weight what matters
24 criteria
baselineWhat data-mapping/discovery capability exists — can the platform automatically discover and classify personal data across structured (databases) and unstructured (file shares, SaaS) sources, and what is the measured classification accuracy?
baselineDescribe DSAR (data subject access request) automation — from intake through fulfillment (locating, compiling, and redacting personal data across systems), and provide a customer-referenced average fulfillment time compared to the regulatory deadline.
baselineWhat consent management capability is included — cookie/tracking consent banners, granular purpose-based consent tracking, and consent-state propagation to downstream systems when a user withdraws consent?
baselineHow does the platform support multi-jurisdiction compliance — GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, and other regional privacy laws — with jurisdiction-specific rule differences (e.g., opt-in vs. opt-out defaults) handled automatically based on user location?
baselineDetail vendor/third-party data-sharing risk assessment — can the platform track which third parties receive what categories of personal data, and flag processing agreements that are missing or expired?
baselineWhat breach-notification workflow support exists — can the platform help determine notification obligations (which regulators, which affected individuals, within what deadline) based on the specific data involved in an incident?
baselineExplain privacy-impact-assessment (PIA/DPIA) tooling — templated assessments tied to specific processing activities, with a defensible risk-scoring methodology and audit trail of who approved what.
baselineHow does the platform handle data retention and deletion enforcement — can retention schedules be automatically applied and enforced across the systems it has visibility into, with proof of deletion for audit purposes?
baselineWhat is the pricing model — per data subject, per data source connected, or a flat enterprise tier — and how does cost scale as the organization's data footprint and connected-source count both grow?
baselineDoes a confirmed data breach automatically trigger the platform's breach-notification workflow tooling, or does the security/legal team need to manually initiate that process separately after an incident is already confirmed through other channels?
baselineHow does the platform address AI/GenAI-specific privacy risk — personal data used in model training sets, or personal data exposed via prompts to third-party LLM tools — distinct from traditional structured/unstructured data-store discovery?
baselineWho within the customer organization gets access to the platform's data map and findings (which teams can see where personal data lives across the organization), and is there role-based access control over the tool's own findings given how sensitive a complete data map is?
baselineHow does the platform integrate with (versus duplicate) the customer's existing DSPM/data-security tooling — does personal-data classification feed into the same unified view, or are they two disconnected systems each doing similar discovery work?
baselineWhat historical trend reporting exists on privacy-program maturity (DSAR fulfillment time trend, data-map coverage percentage, PIA completion rate) over time, suitable for demonstrating program progress to leadership and regulators?
baselineWhat support exists for cross-border data-transfer compliance mechanisms specifically (Standard Contractual Clauses, adequacy-decision tracking) — can the platform track which data transfers rely on which legal mechanism and flag transfers with an expired or missing mechanism?
baselineWhat are the vendor's own data-processing-agreement terms as a sub-processor of the customer's personal data, and can the customer review the actual DPA before signing, given this platform itself processes highly sensitive personal data on the customer's behalf?
baselineMust be compliant with relevant federal and state regulations applicable to educational institutions.
baselineBidder shall comply with the Government of India Guidelines and Act on DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) and other acts/guidelines issued by GOI on a regular basis; proposed infrastructure & applications should also conform to standards of Government of India, IRDAI, and other applicable regulatory guidelines.
baselineProvide privacy security features to store sensitive/confidential/PII GRC documents and associated data (e.g. Fraud Risk investigations).
baselineBe familiar with compliance regulations that pertain to data collection, data storage, data governance, and data accessibility regarding students, employees, and non-affiliated users in the university's systems.
baselineAgree not to use or disclose the university's data without the university's written permission, and provide a mechanism for returning all data at the end of the contract (with automated load into a relational database system).
baselineWill data be packaged and delivered back to the university at the end of service? If so, in what format and how soon will it be delivered?
baselineHow will you ensure that any university data will be destroyed completely from your network at the end of service?
baselineWithin thirty (30) calendar days of contract expiration or termination, Vendor shall deliver a signed attestation that agency data was returned in a structured/secured digital format, all agency technology credentials were deleted from Vendor-owned systems, all connections to the agency network/information systems were terminated, and all agency data on Vendor systems was fully removed/destroyed per industry-standard practices.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Platform baseline
neutral · staff-reviewed
RFIWhat data-mapping/discovery capability exists — can the platform automatically discover and classify personal data across structured (databases) and unstructured (file shares, SaaS) sources, and what is the measured classification accuracy?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Privacy programs stall without accurate automated discovery — look for a stated classification accuracy figure across both structured and unstructured sources, not a manual data-mapping questionnaire.
RFPDescribe DSAR (data subject access request) automation — from intake through fulfillment (locating, compiling, and redacting personal data across systems), and provide a customer-referenced average fulfillment time compared to the regulatory deadline.Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Manual DSAR fulfillment is a major operational burden; look for a stated automation-driven fulfillment time with real customer evidence, comfortably inside the regulatory window (e.g., GDPR's 30 days).
RFIWhat consent management capability is included — cookie/tracking consent banners, granular purpose-based consent tracking, and consent-state propagation to downstream systems when a user withdraws consent?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Look for consent-withdrawal propagation to actually stop downstream processing, not just a banner that records a click with no enforcement behind it.
RFIHow does the platform support multi-jurisdiction compliance — GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, and other regional privacy laws — with jurisdiction-specific rule differences (e.g., opt-in vs. opt-out defaults) handled automatically based on user location?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Privacy law differs meaningfully by jurisdiction — look for automatic jurisdiction-based rule application, not a single global policy that's technically wrong somewhere.
RFPDetail vendor/third-party data-sharing risk assessment — can the platform track which third parties receive what categories of personal data, and flag processing agreements that are missing or expired?
From other buyers
crowdsourced · anonymized
💬
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Third-party data flows are a major privacy risk surface and audit focus — look for a maintained, queryable inventory of data recipients and processing-agreement status, not a static spreadsheet.
RFIWhat breach-notification workflow support exists — can the platform help determine notification obligations (which regulators, which affected individuals, within what deadline) based on the specific data involved in an incident?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Breach notification deadlines are unforgiving and jurisdiction-dependent; look for a genuine decision-support workflow tied to the actual data categories affected, not generic incident-response guidance.
RFPExplain privacy-impact-assessment (PIA/DPIA) tooling — templated assessments tied to specific processing activities, with a defensible risk-scoring methodology and audit trail of who approved what.Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Look for structured, repeatable DPIA workflows with an audit trail, not a blank-document template requiring manual process discipline to be useful.
RFIHow does the platform handle data retention and deletion enforcement — can retention schedules be automatically applied and enforced across the systems it has visibility into, with proof of deletion for audit purposes?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Look for automated, provable enforcement (not just documented policy) — a retention schedule that lives only in a policy document isn't actually reducing risk or liability.
RFIWhat is the pricing model — per data subject, per data source connected, or a flat enterprise tier — and how does cost scale as the organization's data footprint and connected-source count both grow?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; a vendor unable to project cost at meaningfully higher scale creates real budget risk for a growing privacy program.
RFPDoes a confirmed data breach automatically trigger the platform's breach-notification workflow tooling, or does the security/legal team need to manually initiate that process separately after an incident is already confirmed through other channels?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Automated triggering from a confirmed-incident signal is materially faster than requiring a manual bridge between incident detection and the notification-obligation workflow, given regulatory deadlines are often tight (e.g., 72 hours for GDPR).
RFIHow does the platform address AI/GenAI-specific privacy risk — personal data used in model training sets, or personal data exposed via prompts to third-party LLM tools — distinct from traditional structured/unstructured data-store discovery?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
AI-specific privacy risk (training-data exposure, prompt-level PII leakage) is a distinct and increasingly regulated risk category — a vendor should give a specific answer rather than implying traditional data-discovery coverage extends automatically to AI systems.
RFIWho within the customer organization gets access to the platform's data map and findings (which teams can see where personal data lives across the organization), and is there role-based access control over the tool's own findings given how sensitive a complete data map is?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
A complete personal-data map is itself a valuable and sensitive asset — role-based access control over the privacy tool's own findings, not just over the underlying data, is an often-overlooked consideration.
RFPHow does the platform integrate with (versus duplicate) the customer's existing DSPM/data-security tooling — does personal-data classification feed into the same unified view, or are they two disconnected systems each doing similar discovery work?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Look for genuine integration avoiding redundant discovery work; two overlapping tools each independently scanning for sensitive data creates real reconciliation burden and wasted effort.
RFIWhat historical trend reporting exists on privacy-program maturity (DSAR fulfillment time trend, data-map coverage percentage, PIA completion rate) over time, suitable for demonstrating program progress to leadership and regulators?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
RFPWhat support exists for cross-border data-transfer compliance mechanisms specifically (Standard Contractual Clauses, adequacy-decision tracking) — can the platform track which data transfers rely on which legal mechanism and flag transfers with an expired or missing mechanism?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
Cross-border transfer compliance is a distinct, often-overlooked regulatory requirement — ask for a specific answer on SCC/adequacy-decision tracking rather than assuming general privacy-compliance coverage extends to this.
RFIWhat are the vendor's own data-processing-agreement terms as a sub-processor of the customer's personal data, and can the customer review the actual DPA before signing, given this platform itself processes highly sensitive personal data on the customer's behalf?Answer key — what a strong answer shows
A privacy-compliance vendor is itself a data processor/sub-processor and should have its own reviewable, standard DPA — this is a meaningful, checkable due-diligence item, not just a hypothetical.
RFPMust be compliant with relevant federal and state regulations applicable to educational institutions.
RFPBidder shall comply with the Government of India Guidelines and Act on DPDP (Digital Personal Data Protection) and other acts/guidelines issued by GOI on a regular basis; proposed infrastructure & applications should also conform to standards of Government of India, IRDAI, and other applicable regulatory guidelines.
RFPProvide privacy security features to store sensitive/confidential/PII GRC documents and associated data (e.g. Fraud Risk investigations).
RFPBe familiar with compliance regulations that pertain to data collection, data storage, data governance, and data accessibility regarding students, employees, and non-affiliated users in the university's systems.
RFPAgree not to use or disclose the university's data without the university's written permission, and provide a mechanism for returning all data at the end of the contract (with automated load into a relational database system).
RFPWill data be packaged and delivered back to the university at the end of service? If so, in what format and how soon will it be delivered?
RFPHow will you ensure that any university data will be destroyed completely from your network at the end of service?
RFIWithin thirty (30) calendar days of contract expiration or termination, Vendor shall deliver a signed attestation that agency data was returned in a structured/secured digital format, all agency technology credentials were deleted from Vendor-owned systems, all connections to the agency network/information systems were terminated, and all agency data on Vendor systems was fully removed/destroyed per industry-standard practices.
