Security and compliance have become increasingly important factors in enterprise purchasing decisions.
While SOC 2 compliance was once viewed as a differentiator, many organizations now expect vendors to demonstrate independently validated security controls before advancing through procurement.
According to Aaron Puckett, Executive Vice President of Managed Services Group, the next phase of vendor evaluation will place greater emphasis on verifying compliance rather than simply asking whether it exists.
Key Takeaways
- SOC 2 has evolved from a competitive differentiator to an expected requirement for many enterprise procurement and vendor risk assessments.
- Enterprise buyers increasingly want audit reports, compliance documentation, and independently validated security controls — not just vendor security claims.
- Organizations without SOC 2 often face longer sales cycles, additional security questionnaires, and increased procurement scrutiny.
- Many buyers still treat SOC 2 as a checkbox, but leading organizations are beginning to evaluate audit scope and distinguish between Type I and Type II reports.
Enterprise Buyers Want Proof, Not Promises
Enterprise buyers have shifted from accepting vendor security claims at face value to requiring evidence that security controls are operating effectively.
Procurement and security teams increasingly request compliance documentation, audit reports, cyber insurance information, and other supporting materials before approving vendors.
Puckett noted that security professionals generally understand how to evaluate these materials, while many business decision-makers are still developing familiarity with compliance frameworks and their significance.
SOC 2 Is Appearing Earlier in Procurement
Over the past several years, SOC 2 has become a common requirement in requests for proposals (RFPs), vendor questionnaires, and procurement reviews.
Rather than waiting until contract negotiations, many organizations now use SOC 2 as an early screening criterion during vendor qualification.
However, Puckett observed that many organizations ask whether a vendor has SOC 2 without requesting the report or understanding the differences between a Type I and Type II audit.
As a result, SOC 2 often functions as a procurement checkbox instead of a meaningful assessment of a vendor’s security program.
The Cost of Not Having SOC 2
Organizations without a SOC 2 audit can still win enterprise business, but the process is often more difficult.
Vendors may face longer procurement reviews, additional security questionnaires, and greater scrutiny from customer security teams.
According to Puckett, the costs extend beyond just lost opportunities.
Sales teams frequently spend significant time responding to security questionnaires and supplying documentation that an independent SOC 2 audit could have already validated.
These delays increase sales cycle length and consume internal resources that could otherwise support business growth.
Common Misconceptions About SOC 2
One common misconception is that SOC 2 is universally understood across executive leadership.
Puckett noted that many business leaders are unfamiliar with the framework and may not recognize the distinction between Type I and Type II reports.
Another misconception is that obtaining SOC 2 automatically wins enterprise deals.
While the audit can reduce procurement friction and build buyer confidence, it represents only one component of a broader vendor risk evaluation process.
Organizations pursuing SOC 2 also frequently discover that operational maturity — not technology — is the greatest challenge.
Maintaining policies, documentation, evidence collection, and consistent internal processes often requires more effort than implementing technical security controls.
Compliance as a Competitive Advantage
Rather than treating SOC 2 as a compliance exercise, organizations can use it to demonstrate operational maturity and strengthen customer trust.
An independent audit provides buyers with objective evidence that security controls have been evaluated by a third party, reducing uncertainty during procurement.
Puckett emphasized that the strongest organizations use SOC 2 as proof rather than marketing, allowing them to move through vendor risk assessments more efficiently.
Bottom Line
SOC 2 is becoming an increasingly important factor in enterprise vendor selection, but expectations are evolving.
Today, many organizations simply ask whether vendors have SOC 2.
According to Puckett, buyers are increasingly likely to request audit reports, review their scope, and distinguish between Type I and Type II assessments.
As cyber risks continue to grow, independently validated security programs will likely carry more weight than vendor marketing claims.
Organizations that invest in operational maturity and transparent security practices will be better positioned to reduce procurement friction and compete for enterprise business.