Our ACL script library is 10 years old and reflects significant institutional knowledge — do we lose it?

No. The script library archives as a historical analytics artifact and the control logic it encodes transfers into Prova's control-objective documentation. The English-language explanation of what the script tests becomes the control narrative the agent reasons against; the script itself archives with retention lock for historical reference. For organizations with 50+ scripts representing 10+ years of institutional knowledge, the documentation-extraction phase typically takes 40-60 hours of IA team time and is the highest-leverage work in the migration.

Galvanize detects fraud through transaction-level analytics — does Prova?

Yes, for the transaction-level fraud detection that overlaps with SOX ITGC (duplicate payments, vendor-access anomalies, SoD violations at the entitlement level, privileged-access misuse). For broader fraud detection that extends beyond SOX scope (continuous transaction monitoring for AML, trading surveillance, healthcare billing fraud), Prova is not the right tool — that surface belongs to specialized continuous-transaction-monitoring platforms (ACL, TeamMate Analytics, Pathlock transaction monitoring).

How does Prova compare to Diligent's broader portfolio (board management, entity management)?

Prova does not compete with Diligent's board management (BoardEffect, Diligent Boards) or entity management (Diligent Entities) products. Those are adjacent workflows the CCO or General Counsel owns; Prova is focused on SOX and ICFR control testing under the Controller + Internal Audit Director. For organizations with active Diligent Boards or Diligent Entities contracts, those remain in the stack alongside Prova — Prova displaces only the HighBond SOX workstream.

Our Big 4 audit team uses Galvanize output directly — will they accept Prova evidence?

Big 4 audit teams with Galvanize / ACL familiarity recognize data-analytics-driven evidence as a mature format. Prova's evidence format satisfies the same AS 2201 §.39 characteristics through a different production path — SHA-256 authenticity + preserved reasoning traces + direct source-system integration + full-population coverage. Design-partner walkthrough dry-runs with Big 4 engagement teams validate format acceptance before Cohort 1 commitment. To date, Deloitte, EY, and PwC engagement teams have accepted Prova evidence in walkthrough dry-runs.

What about the enterprise risk management (ERM) surface Galvanize covers?

Prova's scope is SOX / ICFR control testing, not enterprise risk management. Galvanize's ERM module (risk register, risk-to-control mapping, risk-appetite framework) is outside Prova's surface. For organizations with an active ERM program, the ERM surface typically remains with Galvanize or moves to a specialist (LogicGate, MetricStream) while SOX moves to Prova. The cut-point between SOX and ERM is the control-to-risk mapping — Prova owns control testing, ERM owns risk-register maintenance.

How does the implementation consulting cost compare?

Galvanize HighBond implementation consulting routinely runs $40,000-$120,000 on top of platform ACV, depending on script-library complexity and ERP connector scope. Diligent's services engagement model is mature but expensive. Prova's Cohort 1 implementation is included in the design-partner engagement — no separate services contract. For organizations accustomed to the Diligent services-heavy model, the consulting-cost savings alone typically cover 8-12 months of Prova ACV.

Comparison · Enterprise GRC

Prova vs Galvanize HighBond (Diligent)

Formerly ACL + Rsam + Galvanize, now under Diligent — the long-standing enterprise GRC platform spanning internal audit, SOX, risk, and compliance, with deep data-analysis heritage (ACL scripts) and a mature Fortune 1000 customer base.

Request a design partner slot See all comparisons

Galvanize HighBond (Diligent) price range

$80,000 – $250,000+ ACV. Entry-point SOX quotes at the 300-1,500 emp tier typically land $100k-$160k; full GRC bundle (Internal Audit + Risk + SOX + Compliance) pushes $200k+.

Best fit for Galvanize HighBond (Diligent)

Organizations with an established internal audit function that relies on data-analytics-driven testing (the ACL scripting legacy), and Fortune 1000 / enterprise GRC teams that need a unified platform across audit, risk, and compliance. Galvanize's analytics depth is genuinely strong for transaction-level fraud detection and data-driven control testing.

Where Prova differs

Galvanize HighBond's data-analytics paradigm — ACL scripts, pre-built audit routines, scheduled queries against ERP extracts — is a pre-LLM implementation of continuous monitoring. The paradigm works, but implementation is script-heavy and the evidence-production model is still batch-report-based rather than agent-reasoned. For a 3-person internal audit team at a mid-market company, the ACL scripting maintenance overhead is significant; the diligent Diligent bundle pricing is a structural mismatch; and the SOX-specific walkthrough workflow is adequate but not best-in-class (AuditBoard and Workiva are deeper for SOX specifically).

Head-to-head on ten buyer dimensions

How Prova compares on what the Controller actually evaluates

Dimension	Galvanize HighBond (Diligent)	Prova
Time to first control test	2-5 months. Implementation includes ERP connectivity, script library configuration (or custom script development), audit routine scheduling, and evidence-export mapping. Faster than Workiva but slower than Prova.	1-2 weeks. No script library to configure; the agent reasons about observed activity against documented control objectives from day one.
PCAOB AS 2201 audit-evidence quality	Strong for data-analytics-driven controls (transaction testing, duplicate-payment detection, segregation-of-duties analysis). Evidence is batch-report-based; §.39 completeness and source reliability are strong; reperformability depends on script preservation.	Equivalent for data-analytics controls, stronger for narrative-reasoning controls (access review, change management). SHA-256 authenticity + preserved reasoning traces satisfy §.39 reperformability more directly than script-based re-runs.
Works at sub-$500M revenue (microcap) price point	Structurally difficult. Entry-point Diligent / Galvanize SOX quotes at the 300-1,500 emp tier land $100k-$160k; bundled pricing pushes $200k+. Sub-$500M revenue microcap G&A cannot absorb this.	Yes. $24k-$45k ACV typical.
Agent-driven control walkthroughs	Not native. ACL scripts + pre-built audit routines are the paradigm, which is analytics-driven continuous monitoring rather than agent-reasoned control testing. The walkthrough memo is still produced by a human auditor reviewing script output.	Native. Agent reasons about access and change activity against control objectives and emits walkthrough-ready summaries.
Multi-ERP support (NetSuite + Sage Intacct + SAP B1)	Strong for data extraction and analytics. NetSuite + SAP + Oracle all supported through ACL's data-connector library. Mixed-ERP environments can be analyzed once extracts are configured.	Direct read-only integration. NetSuite + Intacct integrated natively; SAP B1 + Dynamics via generic SQL/API. Normalizes across ERPs at the evidence-schema level.
Quarterly attestation cycle throughput	Quarterly cadence with scheduled analytics routines. Throughput depends on script-library maintenance; a well-maintained script library produces high throughput, a stale library produces gaps.	Continuous testing without script-library maintenance. Agent adapts to source-system schema changes rather than requiring script updates.
PE portco fit	Structural mismatch at the 300-1,500 emp tier due to pricing. Galvanize customers at this size typically inherited the platform from a pre-acquisition public company phase.	Primary ICP.
Price at 3-person audit team	$33,000-$55,000 per IA FTE-equivalent per year for SOX-scoped Galvanize; $65,000+ for full GRC bundle.	$8,000-$15,000 per IA FTE-equivalent per year.
Integration with external audit firm workpapers	Strong. Big 4 familiarity with Galvanize / ACL data-analytics output is high — Galvanize has a 20+ year incumbent presence with audit firms. Script output exports cleanly into audit workpapers.	Evidence exports in walkthrough summary + sample-of-one + full-population + deficiency-evaluation formats. Design-partner walkthrough dry-runs validate acceptance with Big 4 and regional firms.
ITGC testing automation depth	Moderate. Data-analytics controls (duplicate payments, SoD conflicts, access anomalies) are deep. Narrative-reasoning controls (change-management appropriateness, access-request justification review) are shallower.	Deep for both narrative-reasoning controls and data-analytics controls. The agent handles both categories from a single evidence-production surface.

Pricing ranges are approximate public-facing signals and design-partner reported quotes. AS 2201 references are to the current PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS 2201) covering audits of internal control over financial reporting.

Honest assessment

When Galvanize HighBond (Diligent) is the right call.

Galvanize HighBond wins for organizations with an established data-analytics-driven audit function, a mature ACL script library, and an internal audit team (5+ people) that has built significant institutional knowledge into the script base. If the internal audit group runs 40-60 scheduled analytics routines against ERP extracts, detects fraud and SoD violations through transaction-level testing, and produces data-driven walkthrough evidence that Big 4 engagement teams recognize — HighBond is the correct answer. The 20+ year ACL heritage is a real moat in that environment.

Galvanize also wins for enterprise GRC programs where SOX is one of four or five workstreams (internal audit, enterprise risk management, regulatory compliance, SOX, third-party risk) and the single-platform consolidation has operational benefits. Diligent's broader portfolio (board management software, entity management, compliance) creates useful workflow adjacencies for CROs and CCOs at Fortune 1000 scale.

If your environment is a 3,000-employee public company with a 10-person internal audit team, a 50-script ACL library maintained over 10+ years, and an enterprise GRC program spanning multiple workstreams — Galvanize HighBond has incumbent advantages that are difficult to displace. Do not switch for marginal reasons.

Where Prova wins

When Prova is the decisive answer.

Prova wins where Galvanize's data-analytics-driven paradigm is a mismatch for the scope and staffing reality of the mid-market. A 3-person internal audit team at a 650-emp PE portco cannot maintain a 40-script ACL library; the platform works when the IA team can support it, and collapses when the team cannot. Prova's agent-driven model does not require a script-library-maintenance motion — the agent reasons about the source-system activity against the documented control objective, adapts to schema changes, and produces evidence without the IA team writing and maintaining data-analytics code.

Prova wins on ACV economics for the sub-$500M revenue tier. Galvanize's SOX-scoped pricing ($100k-$160k) is already painful; the bundled GRC pricing ($200k+) is structurally incompatible. At one-tenth the ACV for equivalent PCAOB AS 2201 §.39 evidence quality, the cost comparison is decisive.

Prova wins on the breadth of agent-reasoning control families. Galvanize's strength is data-analytics-driven transaction testing (duplicate payments, SoD conflicts). Prova's strength is across both data-analytics controls and narrative-reasoning controls — access-review appropriateness, change-management approval justification, emergency-change documentation review, vendor-access legitimacy. The narrative-reasoning surface is where LLM reasoning agents are genuinely differentiated, and where pre-LLM platforms (Galvanize, AuditBoard, Workiva) structurally lag.

Migration notes

Moving from Galvanize HighBond (Diligent) to Prova

Galvanize-to-Prova cutover preserves the ACL script library as a historical analytics artifact while shifting control-test execution to agent-produced evidence. The ACL scripts continue running during the parallel-operation window (typically 4-6 weeks around a quarter boundary) so the Big 4 audit partner has evidence continuity, and at cutover the ACL library is archived with the standard retention lock. For organizations with high script-library institutional knowledge, Prova can reference the ACL logic during control-objective documentation — the script becomes an English-language explanation of what the control tests, rather than an execution artifact. Total cutover effort: 60-100 hours depending on script-library size.

Questions specific to the Galvanize HighBond (Diligent) comparison

What buyers ask when evaluating Prova against Galvanize HighBond (Diligent)

Our ACL script library is 10 years old and reflects significant institutional knowledge — do we lose it?: No. The script library archives as a historical analytics artifact and the control logic it encodes transfers into Prova's control-objective documentation. The English-language explanation of what the script tests becomes the control narrative the agent reasons against; the script itself archives with retention lock for historical reference. For organizations with 50+ scripts representing 10+ years of institutional knowledge, the documentation-extraction phase typically takes 40-60 hours of IA team time and is the highest-leverage work in the migration.
Galvanize detects fraud through transaction-level analytics — does Prova?: Yes, for the transaction-level fraud detection that overlaps with SOX ITGC (duplicate payments, vendor-access anomalies, SoD violations at the entitlement level, privileged-access misuse). For broader fraud detection that extends beyond SOX scope (continuous transaction monitoring for AML, trading surveillance, healthcare billing fraud), Prova is not the right tool — that surface belongs to specialized continuous-transaction-monitoring platforms (ACL, TeamMate Analytics, Pathlock transaction monitoring).
How does Prova compare to Diligent's broader portfolio (board management, entity management)?: Prova does not compete with Diligent's board management (BoardEffect, Diligent Boards) or entity management (Diligent Entities) products. Those are adjacent workflows the CCO or General Counsel owns; Prova is focused on SOX and ICFR control testing under the Controller + Internal Audit Director. For organizations with active Diligent Boards or Diligent Entities contracts, those remain in the stack alongside Prova — Prova displaces only the HighBond SOX workstream.
Our Big 4 audit team uses Galvanize output directly — will they accept Prova evidence?: Big 4 audit teams with Galvanize / ACL familiarity recognize data-analytics-driven evidence as a mature format. Prova's evidence format satisfies the same AS 2201 §.39 characteristics through a different production path — SHA-256 authenticity + preserved reasoning traces + direct source-system integration + full-population coverage. Design-partner walkthrough dry-runs with Big 4 engagement teams validate format acceptance before Cohort 1 commitment. To date, Deloitte, EY, and PwC engagement teams have accepted Prova evidence in walkthrough dry-runs.
What about the enterprise risk management (ERM) surface Galvanize covers?: Prova's scope is SOX / ICFR control testing, not enterprise risk management. Galvanize's ERM module (risk register, risk-to-control mapping, risk-appetite framework) is outside Prova's surface. For organizations with an active ERM program, the ERM surface typically remains with Galvanize or moves to a specialist (LogicGate, MetricStream) while SOX moves to Prova. The cut-point between SOX and ERM is the control-to-risk mapping — Prova owns control testing, ERM owns risk-register maintenance.
How does the implementation consulting cost compare?: Galvanize HighBond implementation consulting routinely runs $40,000-$120,000 on top of platform ACV, depending on script-library complexity and ERP connector scope. Diligent's services engagement model is mature but expensive. Prova's Cohort 1 implementation is included in the design-partner engagement — no separate services contract. For organizations accustomed to the Diligent services-heavy model, the consulting-cost savings alone typically cover 8-12 months of Prova ACV.

Company-stage context

Read the Galvanize HighBond (Diligent) comparison in your company-stage context.

Long-form analysis related to Galvanize HighBond (Diligent).

Compare Prova against other tools

Evaluating other options? Here are the other comparisons.

Design partner program · Cohort 1

Request a design partner slot.

Cohort 1 is 8 to 12 design partners — PE portcos in the 300 to 1,500 employee band, public microcaps running 404(a) or 404(b), and regional audit firms adopting agent-produced evidence in walkthroughs.

Design partners get concierge onboarding, a dry-run walkthrough with your external audit partner before year-end, and founder-level access to the roadmap. In exchange we ask for 60 minutes every two weeks.

We will only email you about Prova. No newsletter list, no tracking pixels, no shared contact data.