Compare
Every category around this problem asks you to attest.AutoSAM derives, screens, and proves.
No named competitors and no cherry-picked check marks. This is what each category of tooling around sub-compliance actually does, and what it leaves on your desk.
The categories
Three categories ask. One derives.
Each row is a category of tools, not a vendor. The comparison is structural: where the obligation record actually comes from.
| Category | What it does | What is left with you |
|---|---|---|
Questionnaire-attestation portals | Ask your subs to fill out a form and self-report. | You still own the gap between what they say and what is actually true. |
Supplier-network portals | Give you a directory of who is registered. | They do not derive what a specific award obligates a specific sub to do. |
Generic GRC/TPRM tools | Track risk in the abstract. | They were not built for flow-down obligations, per-clause, per-sub, per-tier, on a defense award. |
AutoSAM | AutoSAM derives obligations from your live award portfolio, screens against the five authoritative public signals, and accumulates an evidence trail as you work. Continuous screening runs upon general availability. | It is not a portal you fill out. It is the system of record for what you already owe. |
Evaluation
One question to put to any tool in each category.
If the answer is a shrug, you have found the gap the category leaves open.
Questionnaire-attestation portals
When a sub's answer stops being true, how would you find out?
Supplier-network portals
Does it know what this specific award obligates this specific sub to do?
Generic GRC/TPRM tools
Can it name the clause, the sub, and the tier the obligation flows through?
See it on your own award portfolio.
Derivation, screening, and evidence, from award to file. The obligation record starts with what you already hold.