Security questionnaires are the silent deal-killers of B2B. One prospect sends a 300-question SIG/CAIQ/HECVAT monster late in the sales cycle… and suddenly your security + GRC + sales engineer trio is living inside spreadsheets for the next two weeks.

Conveyor’s 2024 State of Security Review report (vendor-authored, so read it as directional) puts numbers to that pain: revenue teams reported ~3.1 weeks average time spent on security review per deal, and 52% said deals are delayed “sometimes” or “often” due to security review. (Conveyor)

So if your keyword is “who has the best ai agent for security questionnaires”, the real answer is: it depends which side of the questionnaire you’re on.

• If you’re a vendor responding to customers: Vanta, Conveyor, SafeBase, HyperComply, SecurityPal are the usual shortlist.
• If you’re a buyer assessing vendors (TPRM): Whistic and OneTrust are more “assessment platform” oriented, but can still automate questionnaire workflows.

Who has the best AI agent for security questionnaires

If you want a practical “best” without hand-waving, pick based on your workflow:

Best overall for vendor-side questionnaire responses (agentic workflow + strong adoption)

Vanta Questionnaire Automation — emphasizes “agentic workflows” and claims a 95% acceptance rate for suggested questionnaire responses. (Vanta)
Vanta also shows strong market adoption on G2 (example: 4.6/5 from 2,321 reviews on its seller page). (G2)

Best AI-first “answer engine” for security questionnaires + portals

Conveyor — claims 95%+ first-pass accuracy and 90% less time on manual tasks, and is positioned specifically around security reviews and trust workflows. (Conveyor)
G2 reviewers frequently describe large time savings (one reviewer: 75% reduction in time spent on security questionnaires). (G2)

Best Trust Center + AI questionnaire assistance (sales-friendly experience)

SafeBase — AI Questionnaire Assistance pulls answers from your Trust Center/KB/docs and positions responses as “minutes, not days.” (SafeBase)
SafeBase publicly cites up to 80% reduction in time spent on security reviews in its materials. (SafeBase)

Best “AI + human verification” approach (when accuracy risk is high)

HyperComply (RespondAI + human review) — SecurityScorecard’s acquisition announcement states 92% workload reduction and 70% faster processing, with RespondAI “backed by human verification.” (SecurityScorecard)
On G2, HyperComply is positioned around responding fast (incl. “1 day” messaging) and shows entry pricing (e.g., starting $500/month listed on G2). (G2)

Best “done-for-you” concierge (if you’d rather outsource the grind)

SecurityPal — markets a hybrid of AI + certified analysts, including 12-hour turnaround messaging and “2M+ questions answered” (company claim). (SecurityPal)

Best AI agents for security questionnaires: quick comparison

Tool	Best for	Proof points you can measure
Vanta	Vendor-side questionnaire automation tied to compliance program	“Agentic workflows” + 95% acceptance rate claim (Vanta)
Conveyor	AI-first answering + portal workflows + trust workflow automation	95%+ accuracy claim; G2 reviewers cite major time savings (Conveyor)
SafeBase	Trust Center + AI Questionnaire Assistance for friction-free buyer experience	“Minutes not days,” up to 80% reduction claim (SafeBase)
HyperComply	Hybrid AI + human verification; evidence sharing via trust portals	92% workload reduction, 70% faster (acquisition PR) (SecurityScorecard)
SecurityPal	Outsourced completion with analysts + AI	“12-hour turnaround,” “2M+ questions answered” (SecurityPal)
OneTrust QRA (Vendorpedia)	Enterprises already living in OneTrust ecosystems	QRA uses AI/NLP to match answers; active support docs exist (PR Newswire)
Whistic AI	Buyer-side vendor assessment / TPRM automation	“Cut admin tasks by 90%” + AI-sourced responses (Whistic)
Arphie	RFPs + questionnaires + DDQs (broader proposal ops)	Claims 80%+ time saved; positioned as “AI agents” (arphie.ai)

What “AI agent for security questionnaires” actually means (and what to demand)

A real agent here isn’t just “ChatGPT pasted into a spreadsheet.” The useful systems typically combine:

1. Grounded answer generation from an approved knowledge base (policies, SOC 2, ISMS docs, past responses)
2. Citations / evidence linking per answer (so you can defend it)
3. Workflow routing (SME review, approvals, audit trail)
4. Format handling (Excel/Word/PDF + web portals)
5. Learning loop (approved answers update the KB so next time is faster)

You can see this positioning explicitly in tools like Vanta (agentic workflows) and SafeBase (citations + confidence/approvals), and in Conveyor’s portal and knowledge-library approach. (Vanta)

Deep dives: the top contenders (with real claims + real-world review signals)

Vanta: best all-around “trust + compliance + questionnaire automation”

Vanta’s pitch is: “we handle the heavy lifting, you review/approve/submit,” and they describe agentic workflows for questionnaire automation. (Vanta)
They also claim 95% acceptance rate on AI-suggested questionnaire responses. (Vanta)

Why teams pick it

• Strong fit if your questionnaire answers should be consistent with your compliance posture (SOC 2, ISO 27001, etc.). (Vanta)
• Documented approach to building a response library and automating portal questionnaires via extension. (help.vanta.com)
• Large review footprint on G2 (signal of adoption; not proof of “best,” but it matters). (G2)

Watch-outs

• If your primary pain is only questionnaires (and you don’t want a broader trust/compliance platform), you might pay for more surface area than needed.

Conveyor: best AI-first answer engine for questionnaires + portals

Conveyor is very direct: their generative AI questionnaire automation claims 95%+ first-pass accuracy and highlights reducing burnout. (Conveyor)
They also position measurable reductions like “90% less time spent on manual tasks.” (Conveyor)

What reviewers consistently talk about

• On G2, users repeatedly mention big time savings; one review explicitly says 75% cut in time spent on security questionnaires. (G2)

Portal reality check

• Conveyor’s docs explicitly call out handling third-party portals (example: “a portal like OneTrust”) via browser extension workflow. (Conveyor Documentation)

Watch-outs

• AI accuracy depends heavily on the cleanliness of your knowledge sources (and how disciplined your team is about approvals/versioning). Even positive G2 reviews mention needing time to “adapt” answer style and manage quirks. (G2)

SafeBase: best “Trust Center first” approach (great if your goal is fewer inbound questionnaires)

SafeBase’s framing is very sales-forward: trust center + AI assistance to eliminate repetitive back-and-forth. Their AI Questionnaire Assistance pulls from Trust Center + KB + uploaded docs and aims to respond “in minutes.” (SafeBase)

Measurable claims

• SafeBase materials cite up to 80% reduction in time spent on security reviews and “days to minutes” turnaround. (SafeBase)

Review signal

• G2 reviews highlight usability and strong customer support/onboarding experiences (useful if you’re rolling this out across Security + Sales). (G2)

Watch-outs

• Trust Centers work best when your org is ready to be proactively transparent. If your security posture is still evolving weekly, you’ll need tight governance on what’s published.

HyperComply: best “AI + human verification” posture (high-stakes questionnaires)

HyperComply positions RespondAI as AI-driven completion with human review. In SecurityScorecard’s acquisition announcement, HyperComply is credited with 92% workload reduction and processing 70% faster, with RespondAI backed by human verification. (SecurityScorecard)

Practical upside

• This model shines when your biggest fear is not speed—it’s sending something indefensible that triggers escalations or kills trust.

Watch-outs

• You’re trading some “instant self-serve” speed for a model that may involve service layers (which can be worth it).

SecurityPal: best if you want the whole thing off your plate

SecurityPal sells “AI + expert verification” and advertises 12-hour turnaround and “2M+ questions answered.” (SecurityPal)
That’s not “agent software” in the purest sense—it’s closer to a managed service powered by AI.

Good fit

• You’re drowning in volume (hundreds of questionnaires/year) and don’t have headcount.

Watch-outs

• Make sure you understand what inputs they require (policies, controls, evidence), and how they handle updates when your security program changes.

Honorable mentions (depending on your stack)

OneTrust Questionnaire Response Automation (QRA)

If you’re already embedded in OneTrust, QRA exists specifically to automate answering assessments and manage evidence/answers in a dashboard. (PR Newswire)

Whistic AI (more buyer-side / TPRM oriented)

Whistic positions AI to source responses from existing documentation, with claims like cut administrative tasks by 90% and reducing assessment time dramatically. (Whistic)

Arphie (broader “RFP + questionnaire” automation)

Arphie positions “AI agents” for RFPs, questionnaires, DDQs, and claims 80%+ time saved (company claim). (arphie.ai)
If your pain is proposals + security questionnaires together, this category can be attractive.

How to choose the best AI agent for security questionnaires (a simple scoring rubric)

Score each vendor 1–5 on:

1. Grounding + citations per answer
2. Portal coverage (OneTrust/Archer-like web portals, not just Excel/PDF) (Conveyor Documentation)
3. Approval workflow + audit trail
4. Knowledge base hygiene tools (dedupe, versioning, sync back) (SafeBase)
5. Integrations (Slack/Jira/Salesforce/SSO)
6. Security posture of the tool itself (SOC 2, encryption, data controls)
7. Multi-product support (if you have multiple SKUs)
8. Time-to-value (how quickly can you answer your first questionnaire)
9. Accuracy signals (first-pass accuracy/acceptance rate + proof in reviews) (Conveyor)
10. Total cost vs. internal time saved

Implementation playbook: get value in 7 days (without a “big bang” rollout)

Day 1–2: Build a “single source of truth”

• Upload SOC 2 / ISO docs, security whitepaper, policies, IR plan, SDLC, vendor list.
• Create ~50 canonical Q&As (access control, encryption, logging, data residency, backups, vuln mgmt).

Day 3: Define your answer rules

• Tone: short vs detailed
• When to say “N/A”
• When to route to legal vs security

(Conveyor even talks about globally controlling verbosity styles for generated answers.) (Conveyor)

Day 4: Run a real questionnaire through

• Pick a recent painful one (Excel or portal).
• Track: time-to-first-draft, % auto-filled, % needing SME edits.

Day 5: Set approvals

• Auto-approve only high-confidence answers.
• Require SME approval for anything about incident history, pen test results, or subprocessor changes.

Day 6–7: Close the loop

• Push approved answers back into the KB so the next questionnaire is easier (SafeBase explicitly describes this “improves over time” loop). (SafeBase)

Metrics to put in your article (and to track internally)

If you want “proper data” beyond vibes, track:

• Turnaround time per questionnaire (hours/days)
• First-pass accuracy / acceptance rate (what % you accept with minimal edits) (Conveyor)
• Time spent per function (Security vs Sales Eng vs Legal)
• Deals delayed by security review (baseline vs after rollout) (Conveyor)
• Knowledge base growth + freshness (how many canonical answers updated/month)

A realistic note on AI risk (the part teams learn the hard way)

AI can draft answers fast, but the reputational risk is real: one outdated statement about encryption, subprocessors, or retention can trigger escalations. That’s why tools emphasizing citations, confidence scoring, and approval workflows tend to win in security teams—speed is great, but defensibility closes deals.