Direct answer
Laika became Thoropass on 29 March 2023. A current Laika vs Vanta evaluation is a Thoropass vs Vanta evaluation.
Thoropass describes an end-to-end compliance product that combines software, audit preparation and audit services. Vanta describes a trust-management platform that connects risk, continuous monitoring, framework programs, security reviews and questionnaires.
| Decision | Thoropass | Vanta |
|---|---|---|
| Current company name | Thoropass | Vanta |
| Former name | Laika | None relevant to this query |
| Core posture | Compliance software plus service and audit path | Trust management, monitoring and compliance automation |
| Framework breadth | Thoropass names SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA and HITRUST | Vanta states access to more than 20 frameworks and custom frameworks |
| Auditor relationship | Thoropass promotes an integrated audit experience | Vanta promotes auditor partnerships and monitoring workflows |
| Pricing | Request quote | Request quote |
Why the name matters
Old reviews, contracts and integrations may still use Laika. Current product research should use Thoropass.
During procurement:
- map the old Laika record to the current Thoropass legal and product identity;
- confirm the contracting entity;
- confirm whether old plan names still apply;
- confirm migration and support terms for an existing Laika customer;
- use current Thoropass documentation in the security review.
Thoropass position
Thoropass states that it pairs software and services to simplify information-security compliance. Its rebrand announcement also presents audit preparation, continuous monitoring and an integrated audit experience as core parts of the offer.
This model can fit teams that want one provider to guide readiness and carry the audit relationship. Buyers should verify auditor independence, service scope, scheduling and the boundary between software support and audit work.
Vanta position
Vanta presents a broader trust-management platform. Its public platform page covers continuous monitoring, framework roadmaps, security reviews, questionnaires, integrations and auditor partnerships.
This model can fit teams building a reusable trust program across compliance, vendor risk and customer security work. Buyers should verify which products sit in the quote and how much operational support comes with them.
Comparison questions
Framework and control model
- Which frameworks are included?
- Can one control map to several frameworks?
- Can the team add custom controls?
- How does evidence reuse work across programs?
Integrations and evidence
- Which systems have native integrations?
- How often does each integration test evidence?
- What happens when an integration loses access?
- Can evidence and control history be exported?
Audit workflow
- Can the buyer use an external auditor?
- Which audit firms are supported?
- What information moves between the platform and auditor?
- Which audit steps require services?
Trust operations
- How are security questionnaires handled?
- How is vendor risk managed?
- Can customer-facing trust material be published?
- Which workflows need another product tier?
Contract and exit
- Which products, services and frameworks appear in the quote?
- What changes at renewal?
- What data can be exported at exit?
- Does the contract preserve evidence history?
Recommendation
Use Thoropass when the integrated compliance-service and audit path matches the team’s operating model. Use Vanta when continuous monitoring and a broader trust-management platform carry more weight.
Run one control and one evidence item through both demos. Then run one audit request and one customer questionnaire. Those four tasks expose the real operating difference.
Source notes
Sources checked
Vendor-owned pages establish current product and pricing claims. They do not prove comparative superiority. Glamdring states the source class so readers can judge each claim.