Comparison
AI Assurance Hub vs. spreadsheets & DIY
A spreadsheet is a perfectly good way to start tracking AI. It stops being good the moment you need consistent risk decisions, an approval workflow, or evidence for an auditor — which is sooner than most teams expect.
| Spreadsheet / DIY | AI Assurance Hub | |
|---|---|---|
| Getting started | Fast — but a blank grid with no structure | Minutes, with a guided register and templates |
| Risk scoring | Manual and inconsistent between people | Explainable, versioned rules — reproducible tiers |
| Approvals & workflow | None — email threads and hallway sign-off | Reviewer queue, conditional approvals, safeguards |
| Audit trail | Mutable — anyone can edit history; easily lost | Append-only, attributable, defensible |
| Access & isolation | Shared file, broad access, no MFA | Role-based access, MFA, per-tenant isolation |
| Framework mapping | Manual, one-off, quickly out of date | Live coverage — NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, EU AI Act |
| Staying current | Goes stale the week after you build it | Versioning + scheduled periodic review |
| Evidence for an auditor | Hand-assembled under deadline pressure | One-click audit package (register, decisions, history) |
A spreadsheet is fine if…
You have a handful of AI use cases, no one is asking for evidence yet, and a single person keeps the list in their head. Start there — just plan to outgrow it.
Move to a system of record when…
AI use is spreading across teams, a board/auditor/customer is asking how you govern it, or you need consistent risk decisions and an audit trail you can defend. Building that yourself costs far more than it looks.
The hidden cost of DIY isn’t the spreadsheet — it’s the workflow, access control, audit trail, and framework mapping you’d have to build and maintain around it. A system of record gives you all of that on day one.
Trade the spreadsheet for a system of record.
Explore a fully populated workspace — no signup required.