Control+s vs spreadsheets for security assessments
Updated
Most consultants run their first security assessments in a spreadsheet: one row per control, a score column, a notes column and a folder of client evidence. It works, and it is free. It starts to strain when one client needs two frameworks, when the client asks why a control scored a 2, or when next year’s assessment has to start from this year’s. Control+s keeps the evidence, the score and the reasoning for each control together, across frameworks and cycles.
Side by side
| Spreadsheet | Control+s | |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Free | Free trial with two frameworks and five evidence files |
| Evidence | Files in a separate folder, linked by name or not at all | Uploaded once to the assessment and linked to every control it supports |
| Several frameworks | A tab or file per framework; evidence tracked twice | One evidence collection across the frameworks in scope |
| Scoring | Typed by hand | Drafted with a rationale that cites the evidence; you review and override |
| Explaining a score | Whatever was written in the notes column | Rationale, cited evidence and remaining gaps on every control |
| Client view | Email the file | Framework-scoped link with a password, expiry and your choice of evidence access |
| Auditor questions | Email threads | Auditors review controls and evidence and raise challenges on specific scores |
| Report | Copied into a Word template by hand | Word or PDF report with a gap register and remediation guidance |
| Next cycle | Copy the file and hope the formulas survive | Start from the last assessment and show what changed |
When a spreadsheet is still the right tool
Keep the spreadsheet if the engagement is a one-time, single-framework check with a handful of controls, if the client insists on a specific workbook format, or if you only need a questionnaire with yes and no answers. The overhead of any tool is not worth it for a 20-row checklist.
Where spreadsheets break down
Consultants describe the same problems again and again:
- Duplicate work across frameworks. The same MFA export gets pasted into the ISO tab, the SOC 2 tab and the CIS tab, and the three copies drift.
- Scores nobody can explain later. A score of 3 with a note saying “policy reviewed” does not tell a client, auditor or colleague what the evidence actually showed.
- No clean history. Comparing two years means diffing two workbooks by hand.
- Evidence chasing. Requests go out without saying which control they support, so the client sends the wrong file.
What changes with Control+s
You still make every judgment. Control+s prepares the first pass: evidence mapped to controls, a score and rationale for each one, and the gaps that remain. You review the reasoning, add observations, and override any score. Your override stays in place when new evidence arrives. The time you used to spend assembling the workbook goes into advice.
Frequently asked questions
Is a spreadsheet good enough for a gap assessment?
For a single framework, a single client and a single cycle, often yes. Spreadsheets get harder to manage when the same evidence supports several frameworks, when the client needs to see why a score was given, or when you need to compare this year's result with last year's.
Can I import my existing spreadsheet into Control+s?
Control+s starts from the client's evidence rather than from a spreadsheet of scores. Upload the evidence files you already collected, and Control+s maps them to the controls in scope and drafts each score with a rationale for you to review.
How do I try Control+s on a real engagement?
The free trial covers two frameworks and five evidence files. Use evidence from a real engagement, with your client's permission, to see how the mapping, rationale and results compare with your spreadsheet.