/

  / Drata FedRAMP: How it Handles Authorization Under Rev 5 and 20x

Drata FedRAMP: How it Handles Authorization Under Rev 5 and 20x

In late 2025, Drata became one of a small group of compliance platforms to earn a FedRAMP 20x Low Pilot Authorization, completing the modernized review track that GSA designed to compress federal cloud authorizations from years into weeks. That milestone matters because most “FedRAMP-ready” tools still rely on narrative documentation built for the old process. 

Drata’s authorization is proof that its automation pipeline can satisfy the standards the federal program now wants every cloud service provider to meet. This guide explains what Drata actually does for FedRAMP, where it fits in the authorization workflow, what it costs, and where its limits show up, with current context on how FedRAMP 20x is reshaping the entire process.

Drata FedRAMP Handles Authorization Under Rev 5 and 20x

What Is FedRAMP and Why Does It Matter for Cloud Service Providers?

FedRAMP is the U.S. government’s standardized program for assessing, authorizing, and continuously monitoring cloud services used by federal agencies. Established in 2011 and codified in law through the FedRAMP Authorization Act of 2022, it operates on a do once, use many principle: a cloud service offering authorized once can be reused across federal agencies without each agency repeating the entire security assessment. The program is administered by GSA through a Program Management Office, with technical baselines drawn from NIST SP 800-53.

Three impact baselines define the depth of the controls a cloud provider must implement: Low (156 controls), Moderate (323 controls), and High (410 controls). A separate LI-SaaS baseline streamlines requirements for low-impact SaaS systems. The Moderate baseline is the most commonly pursued path because it covers Controlled Unclassified Information, the threshold most federal contracts demand.

What Is Drata and What Does It Do for FedRAMP?

Drata Company Overview and Background

Drata is a security and compliance automation platform headquartered in San Diego, founded in 2020 by Adam Markowitz, Daniel Marashlian, and Troy Markowitz. The company has grown to roughly 8,000 customers and reached unicorn status with a $2 billion valuation following its Series C round.

In February 2025 it acquired SafeBase, folding the trust center product into its core platform. Drata supports more than 30 frameworks including SOC 2 compliance, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, NIST 800-53, NIST 800-171, CMMC, and FedRAMP.

Does Drata Support FedRAMP as a Framework?

Yes. Drata provides pre-built FedRAMP frameworks for LI-SaaS, Low, Moderate, and High baselines, with controls mapped to NIST 800-53 requirements. The platform is built around OSCAL, the open machine-readable format that NIST developed for control catalogs and assessment data, which is now the required submission format under FedRAMP 20x.

Drata also offers a dedicated FedRAMP Readiness Framework for organizations earlier in the journey. As of late 2025, Drata holds its own FedRAMP 20x Low Pilot Authorization, meaning federal agencies and contractors can use the platform itself without inheriting a compliance gap from their tooling.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

How Drata Works for FedRAMP Compliance Step by Step

Step 1: Connect Your Cloud and Security Tools

The first work in any Drata implementation is wiring up integrations. Drata supports more than 200 connectors covering AWS (including 45+ services), Azure, GCP, GitHub, Okta, identity providers, vulnerability scanners, HRIS, and ticketing platforms.

For FedRAMP environments, the AWS GovCloud and Azure Government integrations matter most, since federal workloads typically live in those tenants. The connections feed system data into Drata’s monitoring engine, where it becomes the raw material for automated control tests.

Step 2: Map Controls to FedRAMP Requirements Automatically

Once integrations are in place, Drata applies its pre-built control mappings against the FedRAMP baseline you have selected. A single control can satisfy requirements across multiple frameworks at once, so an organization that has already implemented SOC 2 compliance or ISO 27001 inherits significant credit when expanding into FedRAMP.

For a deeper look at how those frameworks compare, our ISO 27001 vs SOC 2 guide walks through the key differences. The control set is editable, which matters because FedRAMP allows narrowly scoped parameter overrides for some controls.

Step 3: Continuously Monitor Your FedRAMP Control Environment

Drata runs automated control tests on a continuous basis, validating that the configurations and evidence each control depends on are still in place. When a control drifts, an alert is issued and the gap is logged.

For FedRAMP, this is the operational backbone of continuous monitoring for SOC 2, and for FedRAMP alike, the program’s defining requirement and historically the area where authorized providers most often fall out of compliance.

Step 4: Collect and Organize FedRAMP Evidence Automatically

Evidence is generated as a side effect of monitoring. Configuration data, access logs, and policy acknowledgments flow into Drata and are tagged against the controls they satisfy. The platform replaces manual screenshot collection, which has historically been the most labor-intensive part of FedRAMP audits.

Step 5: Prepare Your System Security Plan and Audit-Ready Documentation

For Rev 5 authorizations, the System Security Plan remains a written document. Drata centralizes the policy library, control implementation descriptions, and supporting artifacts a 3PAO will need, but it does not write narrative SSP language for you.

For FedRAMP 20x submissions, the burden shifts dramatically: the SSP is replaced by structured KSI evidence, and Drata’s OSCAL-native architecture is built specifically to produce the machine-readable packages that path requires.

Important: Drata accelerates FedRAMP work, but it does not eliminate the engineering effort. Boundary architecture, encryption-in-transit and at-rest decisions, configuration baselines, and DoD-specific overlays are technical work the platform cannot do for you. Treat Drata as the compliance automation layer on top of a security program, not as a substitute for one.

Key Drata Features That Support FedRAMP Authorization

Multi-Framework Control Mapping for FedRAMP Baselines

Drata pre-maps controls across FedRAMP baselines and cross-maps them to other frameworks. An organization holding SOC 2 Type II that is now pursuing FedRAMP Moderate will see substantial overlap surface automatically, with Drata flagging only the FedRAMP-specific gaps that require new work.

If you are already working through the SOC 2 process, the Drata SOC 2 guide covers that workflow in detail. The platform supports custom control parameters for cases where FedRAMP allows tailoring.

Continuous Monitoring and Automated Evidence Collection

Drata’s continuous control testing supports FedRAMP’s monthly continuous monitoring obligations and gives security teams visibility into drift between assessment windows. This is meaningfully different from the legacy approach of point-in-time evidence collection, where teams discover a failed control when an auditor surfaces it nine months later. Continuous monitoring is no longer optional under FedRAMP, it is the entire posture model, and Drata’s architecture reflects that shift.

Drata Integrations and API for Federal Environments

The integration library is one of Drata’s strongest selling points. AWS GovCloud, FedRAMP-authorized Azure services, GitHub Enterprise, and Okta all connect directly.

For tools without a native connector, Drata exposes a public API and supports custom integrations, though these often require additional engineering effort and may carry incremental fees of $5,000 to $10,000 per integration.

Audit Hub for FedRAMP Package Management

Audit Hub is Drata’s workspace for managing the back-and-forth with auditors. Evidence requests, fulfillment, and reviewer comments live in one place. For FedRAMP, where auditor interactions span multiple cycles and dozens of evidence items per control, this is more useful than email-and-spreadsheet alternatives.

That said, some users on G2 have noted the Audit Hub is less mature than the rest of the platform and offers limited visibility into audit progress.

Risk and Vendor Risk Management in a FedRAMP Context

FedRAMP requires CSPs to maintain a risk register and assess third-party providers within their authorization boundary. Drata’s Risk Management module supports building, scoring, and tracking those risks, and the Vendor Risk module handles questionnaire distribution, response collection, and vendor scoring. Both modules are paid add-ons at most pricing tiers, a line item worth anticipating early in the budgeting process.

Trust Management and the Drata Trust Center

Following the SafeBase acquisition, Drata’s Trust Center allows CSPs to publish security posture, certifications, and authorization status to prospects and customers. For federal sales motions, a public-facing FedRAMP authorization status page meaningfully reduces the volume of repetitive security review questions from agency contracting officers.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

FedRAMP 20x and What It Means for Drata Users

What Is FedRAMP 20x?

FedRAMP 20x is a GSA initiative announced on March 24, 2025 to dramatically streamline FedRAMP’s security assessment, authorization, and compliance monitoring processes. The program aims to automate validation of CSPs’ compliance with FedRAMP requirements, permit CSPs to leverage commercial security frameworks to achieve authorizations, and reduce agency and third-party oversight of cloud services. The intent is to compress authorization timelines from over a year to weeks while maintaining or improving the underlying security posture.

How FedRAMP 20x Changes the Authorization Process for CSPs

Under Rev 5, CSPs wrote hundreds of pages explaining how each control was implemented. Under 20x, they generate machine-readable proof that the underlying capability is in place and continuously functioning. KSIs replace narrative SSPs, which means less documentation labor but more engineering and a greater reliance on automation.

Agency sponsorship is no longer required for the new path; FedRAMP itself reviews 20x packages directly. Federal News Network reported that the first four pilot vendors received Low authorizations within the first month of the program.

The five strategic goals driving 20x are worth understanding in full: simplification through automation (targeting at least 80% of validation), use of commercial security frameworks as the foundation for federal authorization, reduced agency oversight burden, continuous validation in place of point-in-time assessment, and program-level authorization that does not require an individual agency sponsor.

Benefits of FedRAMP 20x for Agencies and Cloud Service Providers

For CSPs, the headline benefit is speed and cost. Pilot data suggests $500,000 to $1.5 million end-to-end for a 20x Moderate path versus $2 million to $5 million for legacy FedRAMP Moderate, primarily driven by automation reducing 3PAO labor hours.

For agencies, the benefit is real-time visibility into a provider’s posture rather than relying on annual snapshots, plus a much larger marketplace as smaller CSPs become able to enter federal markets for the first time.

Outlook and Timeline for FedRAMP 20x Adoption

The Phase One (Low Baseline) pilot ran from April 2025 to September 2025, with Phase Two (Moderate Baseline) currently underway and due to wrap up at the end of March 2026 before wider 20x rollout planned for Q3 to Q4 2026. FedRAMP will stop accepting new Rev 5 agency authorizations at the end of FY27, which means any provider starting a federal program today should plan around 20x rather than treating it as an optional alternative.

Insider Note: The 20x pilot’s reception inside FedRAMP has been more enthusiastic than the program’s external messaging suggests. The Phase 1 cohort drew 26 submissions in three months, more cloud services than the rescinded Joint Authorization Board processed across its final four years combined. The political appetite to roll 20x out aggressively is real, and Rev 5 is being deliberately wound down rather than allowed to run in parallel forever.

Drata FedRAMP Reviews and Real User Feedback

What G2 Reviews Say About Drata for Government Compliance

Drata holds a 4.8/5 rating on G2 across more than a thousand reviews. Praise centers on automation depth, integration breadth, and customer success manager responsiveness. Critical reviews surface a recurring theme: while Drata’s UI is clean and intuitive once configured, initial implementation is more involved than the sales process suggests, and some integrations collect inventory data without validating the security configurations a FedRAMP auditor will actually want to see.

Reddit and Community Sentiment on Drata for FedRAMP

Reddit sentiment is more candid. Practitioners praise the platform but flag renewal pricing as the most common complaint. Implementation complexity comes up frequently, particularly for teams with mature security stacks that have legacy tooling Drata does not connect to natively.

Skeptics also note that some out-of-the-box integrations work well for inventory collection but fall short on validating security-related configuration, requiring custom integrations to close the gap.

How to Evaluate Drata Reviews as a FedRAMP Buyer

Reviews skew toward SOC 2 and ISO 27001 use cases because that is where most Drata customers live. FedRAMP-specific reviews are sparser. The most useful signal for a federal buyer is whether the reviewer has actually completed an authorization, not just used the platform for readiness work. Ask for FedRAMP-specific references during the sales process and verify the reviewer reached an ATO or 20x authorization rather than stopping at audit-ready.

When Should a Cloud Service Provider Choose Drata for FedRAMP?

Use Cases Where Drata Aligns Well with FedRAMP Goals

Drata fits best for cloud-native SaaS companies that are already running mature commercial security programs and are now expanding into federal markets. Teams with existing SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 certifications, a clean cloud architecture in AWS or Azure, and a willingness to instrument their environment for continuous validation will get the most leverage.

The fit is particularly strong for 20x Low and Moderate paths because Drata’s OSCAL foundation and continuous monitoring model align directly with what 20x demands. If you are starting from an ISO 27001 baseline and want to understand what gaps remain before you begin, our ISO 27001 gap analysis guide is a practical starting point.

Situations Where Drata May Not Be the Best Fit

Organizations with heavily customized legacy GRC workflows, on-premise dependencies that cannot be easily integrated, or a large existing internal compliance team and tooling stack may find Drata less differentiated. CSPs pursuing only High baseline on a tight budget may also struggle, since the additional controls for High require more engineering work that Drata cannot automate away.

Pure-play federal compliance shops focused exclusively on FedRAMP might prefer a more specialized tool like Paramify, which is purpose-built for federal authorization and was a 20x Phase 2 pilot participant. For a broader comparison of where Drata sits relative to other platforms, see our Drata vs Thoropass vs Vanta breakdown, or if you prefer a decision-oriented lens, which compliance solution is right for you walks through the tradeoffs directly.

Drata FedRAMP Pros and Cons

Where Drata Delivers the Most Value for FedRAMP

The strongest arguments for Drata are platform breadth, the holding of its own FedRAMP 20x Low Pilot Authorization, OSCAL-native architecture aligned with where the program is heading, deep AWS coverage, and the cross-framework efficiency that lets organizations reuse SOC 2 and ISO 27001 work. The Trust Center is genuinely useful for federal sales motions where agency reviewers want quick visibility into authorization status.

Limitations to Be Aware Of Before Committing

The platform is priced at a premium, with renewal increases that catch teams off guard. The Audit Hub is less mature than the rest of the product. FedRAMP-specific narrative SSP authoring for Rev 5 paths still requires consulting support outside the platform. Custom integrations carry meaningful additional fees. And while Drata supports the High baseline, the platform’s strongest leverage is on Low and Moderate, where automation-heavy workflows fit best.

Does Drata Support FedRAMP Authorization Natively?

Yes. Drata provides pre-built FedRAMP frameworks for LI-SaaS, Low, Moderate, and High baselines and is built on OSCAL, the standard now required for FedRAMP 20x submissions.

All four. Drata’s framework library includes LI-SaaS, Low, Moderate, and High, each pre-mapped to NIST 800-53 controls.

For Rev 5 paths, Drata centralizes policies, control implementation evidence, and the artifacts an SSP author will reference, but it does not draft narrative SSP language. Most CSPs pair Drata with FedRAMP advisory or consulting support for SSP writing. For 20x paths, the OSCAL-native evidence Drata generates substitutes for narrative SSP content directly.

Yes, particularly on evidence collection, continuous monitoring setup, and cross-framework reuse. The bulk of authorization timeline, however, is determined by 3PAO availability, agency sponsor responsiveness for Rev 5 paths, and internal remediation effort, none of which Drata controls.

Drata runs automated control tests against integrated systems and generates alerts when configurations drift. This satisfies the operational requirement for continuous monitoring for SOC 2 and for FedRAMP alike, producing the evidence needed for monthly ConMon reporting and annual reassessments.

The Drata Agent is a lightweight endpoint client that collects device-level evidence such as disk encryption status, OS version, and security tool presence. For FedRAMP, the agent supports controls related to endpoint security and inventory management. Some teams limit deployment to high-risk roles given practical constraints around employee endpoints.

Significantly. Under 20x, Drata’s continuous monitoring and OSCAL output become the primary submission artifact rather than supporting evidence for a narrative SSP. CSPs pursuing 20x will lean more heavily on the platform’s automation and less on consulting support for documentation.

The closest commercial alternatives include Vanta and Secureframe in the same compliance automation category, plus more specialized federal-focused tools like Paramify, which was a 20x Phase 2 pilot participant and is purpose-built around the FedRAMP submission process. For a structured side-by-side evaluation, our Drata vs Thoropass vs Vanta guide covers the key differences in detail.

Drata is a credible choice for cloud service providers entering the federal market, particularly those starting from a mature commercial security program and pursuing 20x Low or Moderate paths. The platform’s OSCAL foundation, FedRAMP 20x Low Pilot Authorization, and breadth of integrations are genuine differentiators in a category where most tools still treat federal compliance as an afterthought. It is not a complete replacement for FedRAMP advisory expertise, and the pricing rewards careful negotiation rather than blind acceptance of the initial quote.

Teams that go in with clear-eyed expectations about what Drata automates, what still requires human work, and what the platform actually costs at renewal tend to come out the other side of authorization with their budgets and their sanity intact. If you are still evaluating where to start, our guide to which compliance solution is right for you is a practical next step.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Vanta can tell you a control is failing within the hour. It cannot rewrite your access review process, decide which systems belong in audit scope, or explain to a CPA why a test that shows red is actually fine. That work falls to people, and choosing the right ones is the difference between a 6-week path to audit readiness and a 6-month slog that ends with your Vanta subscription renewing before you have a report. This guide ranks the 7 best Vanta deployment services for 2026, explains what each one is good at, and covers what most comparison pages skip: how long this really takes, what it costs, and how to spot a partner who’ll hand you a half-configured platform and disappear. What Is a Vanta Deployment Service? A Vanta deployment service is a hands-on engagement where a specialist firm sets up, configures, and operationalizes Vanta so your company reaches audit readiness for one or more compliance frameworks. Vanta itself is a compliance automation and trust management platform: it connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repositories, HR system, and endpoints, then runs automated tests and maps the evidence to frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR. The platform automates evidence collection and continuous monitoring. It doesn’t put controls in place for you. A deployment partner handles the judgment work around the tool: scoping, gap analysis, control mapping, policy writing, risk assessment, remediation of failing tests, and coordination with the audit firm. The best partners also stay on after the audit, because a Vanta instance nobody owns degrades fast. Worth Knowing: Vanta is a software vendor, not an auditor. Vanta is a software vendor, not an auditor. Your SOC 2 report still comes from a licensed CPA firm under AICPA attestation standards, and your ISO 27001 certificate comes from an accredited certification body. A deployment partner sits between the platform and the auditor. 1. Axipro Best for: SaaS and technology companies that want Vanta deployed, controls implemented, and the audit delivered by one accountable team, fast. Axipro is an authorized Vanta partner and a Drata Elite Partner, so its team works inside both leading compliance automation platforms every day. Founded in 2023, it has served 200+ clients from offices in the US, UK, and Bahrain, with a 100% audit success rate across 200+ certified clients. What puts Axipro first is scope. Most Vanta partners configure the platform and leave control implementation to you. Axipro’s Achievement Plan covers the whole path: kick-off and Vanta setup, gap analysis, a full policy and procedure suite, risk assessment and treatment, control implementation, vulnerability scanning, an internal audit, and external audit facilitation with an independent auditor. Clients get a dedicated infosec team over Slack, and the Achievement Plan comes with guaranteed certification. The other reason is speed. Axipro typically reaches SOC 2 readiness in around four weeks and ISO 27001 certification readiness in as little as six. It supports 20+ frameworks, including SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, CMMC, ISO 42001, and the EU AI Act, plus Gulf frameworks such as NCA ECC and SAMA CSF that most US-only partners cannot cover. Teams that want to test the relationship first can start with the free 30-day Compliance Accelerator Plan, which includes Vanta setup, gap analysis, and policy documentation, and continue into ongoing vCISO and continuous monitoring through the Trust Assurance Plan after certification. Watch for: Axipro is built for companies that want the work done for them. Teams that want a light-touch coaching engagement and plan to run the program in-house will use only part of what it offers. 2. Control and Function Best for: US SaaS companies of roughly 10 to 60 people that want SOC 2 and ISO 27001 run as one fixed-price project. Control and Function is a Denver-based consultancy built around fixed-scope, fixed-price readiness for small SaaS teams that have no compliance department. Its sweet spot is the dual-framework engagement: building SOC 2 and ISO 27001 from one shared control set rather than running two projects back to back. It also covers HIPAA for healthtech and maps ed-tech requirements such as FERPA and HECVAT. The firm is platform-neutral, so it works inside Vanta rather than reselling it, and it is explicit about handing off cleanly to an independent auditor. It’s also one of the few firms here that publishes prices, with readiness coaching starting around $8,000 and full readiness around $15,000. Watch for: The framework range is narrower than larger partners. Companies that need PCI DSS, CMMC, or international frameworks will need a second provider. 3. Neutral Partners Best for: Growing companies that need managed GRC across SOC 2, ISO 27001, CMMC, and FedRAMP without hiring an internal compliance team. Neutral Partners, based in Miami, runs a managed GRC model. It builds and documents the compliance program, tests it through internal audits, and then hands off to the relevant independent assessor: a CPA firm for SOC 2, a certification body for ISO 27001, or a C3PAO for CMMC. It never issues the certificate itself, which keeps the independence question simple. Its framework coverage leans toward regulated and government-adjacent work, including CMMC, FedRAMP, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and HITRUST. That makes it worth a look for defense suppliers and companies selling to the public sector. Watch for: Vanta isn’t its main focus. Ask for recent Vanta deployment examples in your framework before signing. 4. Kobalt.io Best for: Small and mid-sized businesses that want Vanta plus managed security operations. Canada-based Kobalt.io markets itself as one of Vanta’s leading global service partners. Its Vanta practice covers policy and control development inside the platform, custom control mapping where standard controls do not fit, and an applicability review of Vanta’s tests. The broader appeal is its managed security services, which suit companies that want compliance and security operations from the same provider. 5. AuditPeak Best for: Startups that want a readiness and audit-preparation partner focused narrowly on SOC 2. AuditPeak focuses on SOC 2 audit readiness for early-stage companies working in

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s