One place to onboard vendors, assess and monitor their risk, manage contracts, and keep an audit-ready record of the relationship. Built for DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2 and NIS2. Every decision, from approval to risk tier to contract change, is recorded with a named owner, a timestamp and a documented basis.
Trusted by banks, payment institutions and fintechs across Europe for vendor management and third-party risk under DORA, NIS2 and ISO 27001.
Records stay current without manual upkeep and always audit-ready, covering the security and risk information any compliance framework asks for.
Run due diligence with reusable, practitioner-built questionnaires tailored by vendor type and framework. Collect documents, track responses, and route reviews through to approval.
Risk tiers come from a documented methodology across 40+ data sources, not a single questionnaire, with certifications and re-assessment triggers tracked between reviews.
Every vendor contract sits in one register with renewal windows and notice periods tracked, and alerts fire before any deadline passes.
The detail behind each stage: what it tracks, what it records, and what it produces.
Vendor evidence and third-party risk data collect in one database instead of scattered folders and shared docs. Vendors and your team upload proof directly, and auditors get scoped, structured access to what's current.
Evidence and policies for existing vendors carry an expiry date, and Copla flags each one before it lapses, so a vendor's security posture stays current between certification cycles, whichever framework sets them.
Vendor risk needs to reach people who never touch the platform: a board, risk managers, an auditor asking for a snapshot. Copla turns the record into a dashboard view they can read directly.
Program Director, BlockBen
Managing Director, FMpay
COO, Axiology
less compliance work
Audit-ready at any point in time
Success rate in audits & certifications
Third-party breaches accounted for 48% of the total in Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report, up 60% year on year. The risk isn't in question. What breaks down is the coordination behind it: due diligence rebuilt differently every time, evidence that exists but can't be produced on demand, contracts that renew on their own.
1
A vendor gets approved in a chat thread, over email, or in a meeting nobody wrote up. Eighteen months later, during a review, no one can reconstruct who approved it, what was checked, or whether it was still current.
2
With no single structured process, due diligence gets rebuilt differently every time: a different template, a different depth, a different reviewer's judgement call. There's no consistent methodology to point to when someone asks how a vendor was actually assessed.
3
A contract auto-renews during a team transition. The notice window passes unnoticed — no alert, no review — and the vendor stays on terms nobody re-checked.
4
Due diligence usually did happen. The problem is producing it: the questionnaire in an inbox, the certificate in a drive, the approval in a chat thread. Reconstructing the trail for a review takes weeks.
Vendor risk management is part of Copla's wider GRC platform, where vendor information connects to business impact, risk, controls, tasks, evidence and regulatory outputs.
Capture vendor details, classify the relationship, send the questionnaire, collect documents, and route approvals to the right business unit.
Use questionnaire responses, submitted evidence and vendor information to identify and assign a documented risk tier.
Link critical vendors to business processes, assets and dependencies, so third-party exposure becomes part of the wider risk picture.
Track renewal dates, notice periods, SLA reviews and key contract terms, with reminders before deadlines lapse.
Connect vendor-related risks to controls, tasks, owners and risk mitigation work inside Copla.
Keep the evidence trail connected and reusable for audits, registers and regulatory reporting.
Teams cut the manual side of risk work by up to 80% and reach audit readiness in a fraction of the usual time.
Vendor risk requirements vary across regulations and security frameworks. Copla gives you one consistent process for managing third parties, with deeper support where requirements demand it.
Vendor inventory
Onboarding and due diligence
Vendor profiles
Continuous risk monitoring
Contracts, tasks and audit trail
Vendor inventory
Onboarding and due diligence
Vendor profiles
Continuous risk monitoring
Contracts, tasks and audit trail
Most platforms hand you the tooling and leave the judgement to you. Copla pairs the two.
Copla can run the platform for you: vendor intake, risk assessments, certification tracking, the contract register, and monthly written reports. Your team still owns every decision: vendor selection, risk treatment, regulatory interpretation. Assessments produced this way are advisory: Copla does not independently audit or verify certifications.
It runs third-party risk management end to end: onboarding questionnaires, risk tiering with a documented basis, certification and breach monitoring, contract tracking, and the register and audit records regulatory requirements call for. One record per vendor keeps evidence queryable at any point, without a reconstruction exercise beforehand.
Questionnaires are pre-built per vendor type and framework, so nobody starts from a blank template. Document requests, reminders and follow-ups are automated, and certifications are collected and dated as they arrive. The second onboarding reuses the structure of the first, which is where most of the time saving comes from.
Most vendor risk management tools give you the workflow and leave the judgement to your team: whether evidence is sufficient, whether a tier is defensible. Copla includes in-house CISOs who review evidence and advise on methodology, working inside the same system you use. You get the automation and the expertise on one contract.
Yes. Your vendor data sits on one profile: contacts, certifications, questionnaires, submitted documents, contracts, risk history and activity log, with version control on documents and a timestamped record of every change. Auditors get scoped access to exactly what they need, structured and ready to hand over.
Requirements are cross-mapped, so work done for one framework counts toward the others. Copla shows where DORA, ISO 27001, NIS2 and SOC 2 ask for the same thing about the same vendor, runs a gap analysis against your existing documentation, and lets one round of due diligence satisfy each of them.
Yes. Vendor, service and contract records are held in the structure the Register requires, and submission runs in Copla Registry, which enforces EBA filing rules, validates before submission, and exports XBRL-CSV. It's guided rather than fully automated: you supply the data, Copla structures and checks it.
AI risk scoring flags potential risks around a prospective vendor's reputation, operating location and breach history before signature, alongside the due diligence questionnaire. That gives you a documented pre-contract assessment while terms are still negotiable, which is what DORA's third-party risk requirements expect at that stage.
No. In-house CISOs are included, which is how firms without a dedicated compliance function still run a defensible programme. You need an internal owner to coordinate and make the risk decisions, since accountability stays with your firm, but they don't need to be a specialist.
Every action is recorded with a timestamp and the user who took it. Approval decisions include the questionnaire responses and documents current at the time. Risk tier changes include the basis for the change. The trail isn't editable after the fact, so it reflects what was known and decided at each point.
Copla tracks expiry dates against each vendor and sends alerts before they lapse, alongside re-assessment triggers tied to risk tier and schedule. That's what keeps a third-party risk programme different from an annual exercise: the record stays current between reviews.
Pricing is per entity. The figure depends on the size of your vendor portfolio and the scope of the implementation. There are no fixed published tiers, so pricing is discussed on the call and confirmed before any commitment.
