SOC 2 vs. SOC 3: What’s the Difference and Which One Do You Need?

Selecting the right System and Organization Controls (SOC) report is a critical strategic decision for any service organization. It significantly shapes trust, influences deal speed, and impacts overall customer confidence. Both SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports originate from the same established framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), yet they are designed to serve distinctly different needs and audiences. Understanding the purpose, scope, and target audience for each report type is essential for making an informed choice that aligns with your business objectives.

This guide provides a clear explanation of the SOC 2 vs SOC 3 comparison in practical terms. It delves into where each report fits within the compliance landscape, what stakeholders typically expect from each report, and how to effectively plan the effort and associated costs. We will address the core question of the difference between SOC 2 and SOC 3, detailing who will read each report, what information it contains, and how your organization can effectively leverage it, particularly in sales and marketing efforts. Use this information to align your leadership team, reduce friction during customer security reviews, and present strong, credible evidence that accurately reflects the health of your internal controls.

Part 1: Defining the Reports: SOC 2 and SOC 3 Fundamentals

Before comparing the two reports directly, it is essential to understand the individual purpose, structure, and intended use case of each. Both are attestation reports designed to provide assurance about a service organization’s controls, but they achieve this in very different ways.

What Are SOC Attestations? A Foundation of Trust

SOC reports are independent attestation reports that provide assurance over a service organization’s internal controls, particularly those that affect the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy of customer data. These reports are part of the broader SOC framework established by the AICPA to standardize how service organizations report on their control environments.

The process involves an audit conducted by an independent certified public accountant (CPA) firm. The CPA firm evaluates the design of the service organization’s controls. For Type II reports, the firm also tests the operating effectiveness of those controls over a defined period. The final output is a formal audit report that provides customers and their auditors with the information they need to assess the risks associated with using the service.

SOC 2 At A Glance: The Detailed Assurance Report

A SOC 2 report evaluates a service organization’s system against one or more of the five Trust Services Criteria (TSCs). These criteria provide a comprehensive framework for assessing information security and operational controls.

• ‍Purpose: To provide detailed information and assurance about the controls at a service organization relevant to Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and/or Privacy of the data processed by the system.

• Structure: A SOC 3 report is a general-use summary based on an examination against the Trust Services Criteria and is commonly issued alongside a SOC 2 (often Type II), but it does not itself have Type I/II designations.
• Content: A SOC 2 report provides significant narrative detail. It includes:
  • Management’s assertion regarding the controls.
  • The service auditor’s opinion letter.
  • A detailed description of the service organization’s system (Section 3).
  • For a Type II report, a detailed listing of the controls tested, the auditor’s test procedures, and the results of those tests (Section 4).‍
• Audience and Distribution: The primary audience includes current customers, business partners, prospective customers (under NDA), and their auditors who require detailed information to perform vendor risk assessments. Distribution is restricted due to the sensitive nature of the information included.

Part 2: SOC 2 vs. SOC 3: Key Differences Explored

Understanding the SOC 2 vs SOC 3 comparison requires looking closely at their practical differences in audience, depth, use case, and distribution.

Audience: Detail Focused vs. General Assurance

• SOC 2: Targeted at stakeholders who need in depth information to make informed risk decisions. This includes customer security teams performing due diligence, vendor risk managers, and the client's own auditors. They need the specifics found only in a SOC 2.

• SOC 3: Aimed at a broader, less technical audience who need a simple confirmation of compliance. This includes potential customers in the early stages of evaluation or website visitors looking for a quick trust signal.

Read also: SOC 1 vs. SOC 2: Understanding the Key Differences

Depth of Information: Comprehensive Detail vs. High Level Summary

• SOC 2: Provides extensive detail. It lists the specific controls the organization has implemented, explains how the auditor tested each control, and reports the results, including any exceptions or deviations found during testing. This transparency is crucial for detailed risk assessments.‍
• SOC 3: Provides only a summary. It confirms that the organization met the criteria for the selected TSCs but deliberately omits the specific control details, test procedures, and results. It essentially provides the auditor's opinion without the supporting evidence.

Primary Use Case: Due Diligence vs. Marketing

• SOC 2: The primary use case is vendor due diligence and third-party risk management. Customers use the detailed information to verify that a service provider's security practices meet their requirements and to support their own internal information security audits.‍
• SOC 3: The primary use case is marketing and building brand trust. It serves as an easily shareable, public-facing statement that the organization takes security seriously and has undergone an independent audit.

Distribution: Restricted vs. General Use

• SOC 2: Contains sensitive details about an organization's internal controls and security practices. Therefore, its distribution is restricted. It should only be shared under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with parties who have a legitimate business need to review it.

• SOC 3: Designed for broad distribution. It can be freely posted on a company website, included in marketing materials, or provided to anyone without requiring an NDA.

Effort and Cost Considerations

It is a common misconception that getting a SOC 3 report is significantly easier or cheaper than a SOC 2. Because a SOC 3 report is derived from a SOC 2 audit, the underlying effort is largely the same.

• Audit Work: The CPA firm must perform the full SOC 2 audit procedures (either Type I or Type II) to have a basis for issuing a SOC 3 opinion. The same level of control implementation, evidence collection, and testing is required.‍
• Reporting Cost: There is typically an additional, though relatively small, fee from the CPA firm to draft and issue the separate SOC 3 report alongside the SOC 2 report.‍

• Internal Effort: The internal effort required from your team to prepare for the audit (readiness, remediation, evidence gathering) is identical whether you plan to issue only a SOC 2 or both a SOC 2 and a SOC 3.

Part 3: The Strategic Decision: Choosing the Right Report

Selecting the appropriate report, or deciding to pursue both, is a strategic choice that depends on your business model, customer base, and market positioning.

Decision Framework: SOC 2 Or SOC 3?

• Do your customers (or their auditors) send detailed security questionnaires or specifically request information about your internal controls for their vendor risk assessments?
  • If yes, you almost certainly need a SOC 2 report. A SOC 3 will not provide the necessary detail.
• Do you need a publicly shareable artifact to build trust with prospects early in the sales funnel or to display on your website?
  • If yes, a SOC 3 report is the appropriate tool.
• Are you primarily selling to large enterprise customers or organizations in highly regulated industries?
  • If yes, a SOC 2 Type II report is likely considered table stakes. A SOC 3 alone will probably not be sufficient.
• Are you primarily selling to small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) through a self-service or online channel?
  • If yes, a publicly available SOC 3 report might be sufficient to reduce initial friction and build confidence, potentially supplemented by a SOC 2 report available upon request for larger prospects.

The “Both” Strategy: Leveraging SOC 2 and SOC 3 Together

For many service organizations, particularly SaaS companies, the most effective strategy is to obtain both reports:

• Achieve SOC 2 Type II: This demonstrates a mature, operational security program and satisfies the detailed due diligence requirements of sophisticated enterprise customers.
• Issue a SOC 3 Report: Based on the SOC 2 Type II audit, issue a SOC 3 report and display the associated seal on your website. This provides a readily accessible trust signal for all visitors and can reduce the number of initial security questions from smaller prospects.

Understanding the Underlying Criteria: The Trust Services Criteria (TSCs)

Regardless of whether you pursue a SOC 2 or SOC 3, the foundation is the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria. The Security criterion (also known as the Common Criteria) is mandatory for both report types. Your organization must then decide which of the additional four criteria (Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy) are relevant to your service and commitments to customers. Including more criteria generally increases the scope and cost of the audit but provides broader assurance. Aligning your internal security controls and operational processes with these specific categories gives clear coverage and facilitates the audit process.

Conclusion

The SOC 2 vs SOC 3 comparison highlights two valuable but distinct tools for demonstrating trust. They serve different use cases while relying on the same underlying Trust Services Criteria and control set. SOC 2 provides the in-depth, detailed attestation required for rigorous customer due diligence and formal vendor risk reviews. SOC 3 offers a concise, public-facing trust message suitable for marketing and general assurance purposes. The optimal path depends on your specific audience and their expectations. By understanding the purpose and content of each report, aligning your scope and evidence gathering, and potentially leveraging both reports strategically, your organization can effectively communicate its commitment to security and build lasting confidence with customers and partners.

Plan your path to SOC compliance with a partner that understands the nuances.

A guided readiness assessment can help you determine the right report for your buyers, identify control gaps, and streamline fieldwork. Aligning controls to the criteria, reducing noise in evidence collection, and preparing owners for auditor interviews are key steps to success. Schedule a consultation to map the appropriate report for your buyers and deliver a clear, defensible result that builds market trust.

Sources:

• AICPA & CIMA — SOC 2®: SOC for Service Organizations—Trust Services Criteria (official topic page) (https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2) (AICPA & CIMA)
• AICPA & CIMA — SOC 3®: SOC for Service Organizations—Trust Services Criteria for General Use Report (official topic page) (https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-3) (AICPA & CIMA)
• AICPA & CIMA — 2017 Trust Services Criteria (with Revised Points of Focus — 2022) (https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/2017-trust-services-criteria-with-revised-points-of-focus-2022) (AICPA & CIMA)
• AICPA & CIMA — 2018 Description Criteria (DC Section 200) for SOC 2® (with Revised Implementation Guidance — 2022) (https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/get-description-criteria-for-your-organizations-soc-2-r-report) (AICPA & CIMA)