Framework

SOC 2, mapped to controls you already have

SOC 2 is the standard US buyers ask for. OptiTech maps it to the controls you run for ISO 27001 and NIS2, collects evidence continuously, and gives your auditor a portal, so a SOC 2 report stops blocking deals.

  • Type 1 + 2

    Both report types supported

  • Reuse controls from ISO and NIS2

  • Portal

    Auditor access with full evidence

SOC 2 is a gate to enterprise revenue

  • Deals stall without it

    US and enterprise buyers ask for a SOC 2 report before they sign.

  • Starting from zero is slow

    Building a SOC 2 program from scratch takes months you may not have.

  • Evidence is manual

    Type 2 needs evidence over a period, not a one-time snapshot.

How OptiTech gets you a report

  1. 01

    Map from what you have

    Reuse your ISO 27001 and NIS2 controls against the Trust Services Criteria.

  2. 02

    Collect evidence over time

    Continuous evidence covers the observation period a Type 2 requires.

  3. 03

    Hand off to the auditor

    A read-only portal with the full evidence chain speeds the report.

What OptiTech gives you for SOC 2

  • Trust Services Criteria

    Security and the other TSC, ready to activate.

  • Cross-mapping

    Reuse ISO 27001 and NIS2 controls.

  • Continuous evidence

    Coverage across the Type 2 observation period.

  • Auditor portal

    Read-only access with the full evidence chain.

SOC 2 should not be a second program. It should be a report your existing controls already earn.
OptiTech, Product principle

Questions

  • Yes. Continuous evidence covers the observation period a Type 2 report requires.
  • Yes. Controls are cross-mapped to the Trust Services Criteria, so you start from what you have.
  • Yes. A read-only auditor portal exposes the full evidence chain.
  • Yes. The AI copilot drafts answers from your controls, and the Trust Center publishes your posture.
Framework

Stop letting SOC 2 block deals

Map it to your controls and collect evidence continuously.

Book a free gap analysis