We Just Finished SOC 2 Type 2. Here's the Honest Debrief.
Docubark recently wrapped our SOC 2 Type 2 audit and got the final report back. Since we build a third-party risk management platform, we usually sit on the other side of these documents, reading them to evaluate vendors. Going through one ourselves was clarifying, and a few things stuck with me. Some flattering, some less so.
It really does make you think about security.
This is the part I won't undersell. The process forces you to write down how you actually handle access, change management, vendor review, and incident response — and then prove you do those things consistently over time. For a lot of teams, that's the first time security stops being tribal knowledge and becomes a system. That alone has value, independent of the logo you get to put on your site.
But it may not be the right instrument for small companies.
SOC 2 was built with a certain scale of organization in mind: separate teams, layered controls, formal handoffs. When you're under 100 people, you end up engineering process to satisfy a framework rather than because the process makes you safer. You can do it, and we did, but there's a real question of whether the marginal security gain justifies the marginal overhead at that size. Often the honest answer is "not yet."
The conflict of interest is hard to ignore.
Here's the uncomfortable structural fact: the company being audited pays the auditor, picks the auditor, and can go shop for a different one next year. We saw the same dynamic flagged in financial auditing decades ago. I'm not saying auditors aren't rigorous. Ours was. But anyone reading a SOC 2 report as a buyer should remember that the incentives don't point neatly toward maximum scrutiny. The report tells you a company cleared a bar. It doesn't tell you how high someone chose to set it. This is part of why focusing on vendor status over vendor controls often gives you more signal than the report itself.
Most of our customers were happy with Type 1.
This surprised me. A Type 1 report, which assesses your controls at a single point in time, was enough to satisfy the large majority of buyers at our stage. Type 2, which tests those controls over a period of months, is more rigorous and more credible. But "more credible" and "what the buyer actually needed to move forward" turned out to be different questions. If we'd been purely demand-driven, we might have stayed on Type 1 longer.
Was it worth it? Probably, yes.
Expensive and a lot of work. Both true. But it forced a level of operational discipline we'd have deferred otherwise, and it removes friction in deals where security review would have stalled us. I'd just want any founder to go in clear-eyed: do it because you've decided the discipline and the market access are worth the cost, not because a sales prospect waved the acronym at you.
If there's a takeaway for the risk and compliance side, it's this: a SOC 2 report is a useful signal, not a verdict. Read which type it is, read the scope, read the exceptions, and remember the incentives behind who commissioned it. A report is the start of a diligence conversation, not the end of one — and treating it as the latter is how programs get fooled.
We're glad we did it. We'd just encourage anyone earlier in the journey to ask the harder question first: what are we actually trying to prove, and to whom?
Book a Demo