.webp)
Last updated: July 2026
TL;DR
Conveyor is one of the strongest products in security questionnaire automation. G2 reviewers rate it 4 to 5 stars, and the praise is consistent: fast setup, AI that improves as you correct it, and a support team reviewers name unprompted.
Conveyor pricing is public, which is rare in this category. As of July 2026 their pricing page lists a free tier, a Business tier starting at $9,600 per year, and a custom Enterprise tier, on a credit-based model with unlimited seats.
Teams look at Conveyor alternatives for four reasons, all of them raised by Conveyor's own users on G2: portal coverage beyond the browser plugin, parsing of structured spreadsheet fields like dropdowns and mapped cells, permissions deeper than a flat folder structure, and control over the tone of generated answers.
The main Conveyor alternatives are Skypher, SafeBase (now part of Drata), Wolfia, and the RFP-first tools Loopio and Responsive. We make Skypher, so read the comparison with that in mind. Every factual claim here is sourced and dated.
What is Conveyor and how does it work?
Conveyor is a security questionnaire automation and trust center platform. It positions itself as "The AI-Native Customer Trust Platform" and automates the customer security review workflow end to end (conveyor.com, as of July 2026).
The product covers three connected jobs. A trust center lets prospects self-serve security documentation without emailing your team. An AI engine drafts questionnaire answers from your knowledge base. A browser extension fills questionnaires inside web portals such as OneTrust and ServiceNow.
Their customer list is strong. As of July 2026 their site names Sumo Logic, Zapier, dbt Labs, Alteryx, Zendesk, Carta, Atlassian, Lucid, Red Canary, Temporal, Loeb & Loeb, Nucleus Security and Nutrient. Anyone telling you Conveyor lacks enterprise traction is not being straight with you.
The metrics they publish as of July 2026: 96% answer accuracy, 98% questionnaire completion rate, 3x capacity increase, and 75% fewer questionnaires reaching the security team. Published case studies include Carta at 83% time reduction, Lucid going from 4 minutes to 22 seconds per question, and Temporal claiming over $100K in annual savings.
For context on the problem all of these tools are solving: across 100,000+ security questions processed through Skypher, 71.2% of questionnaires arrive as Excel, 19.2% through online portals, and 9.6% as Word documents. Format and portal coverage is not a side feature at those proportions. It is most of the job.
Conveyor pricing in 2026
Conveyor publishes pricing openly, which deserves credit. Many vendors in this category, including us, do not. The following is from conveyor.com/pricing as of July 2026 and may have changed since.
Pricing is usage-based rather than per-seat. Their pricing page states "No per-user fees. No charges for integrations. No nickel-and-dime add-ons."
The unit to understand is the credit. Trust center credits and questionnaire credits are separate allocations, so capacity planning depends on both how many questionnaires you answer and how many organisations view your trust center. One credit equals one organisation accessing your trust center.
For teams with steady volume this is easy to forecast. For teams whose trust center traffic spikes during enterprise deal cycles, model it before signing. This is the single most common reason teams search for security questionnaire automation that does not meter per questionnaire or per trust center visit.
Conveyor reviews: what G2 users say
The reviews below are from G2, collected between 28 and 31 October 2025. Both praise and criticism are quoted directly rather than paraphrased.
What Conveyor users praise
Support is the most consistent theme. A daily user calls it "Amazing customer support." Another writes the team "is also super responsive and is always happy to hop on a call to sort out any issues, take feedback, or provide helpful tips." A security consultant lists "Great support - quick and effective" first. Four separate reviewers naming your support team is a real strength, not a marketing line.
Time saved is specific. One daily user reports Conveyor "cut response by half or even less for completing Customer questionnaire." Another says reviews dropped "from several days or weeks to just a couple of days, sometimes even to one day." A third titled their review "Saves Hours."
Setup is fast. "I appreciate how intuitive and straightforward the setup was," writes a reviewer who has run their trust center on it for a year and a half. A security consultant agrees: "Easy to implement - the configuration was very quick and easy."
The AI improves as you correct it. A well-designed feedback loop worth calling out: "when i correct the answer it remembers it for next time - the more you use it, the better it gets and the more it learns. I have seen immense progress in it's answering capabilities in the past 7 months of use."
Completion rates hold up. One reviewer describes submitting "a standard document into the portal and receive more than 90% completion."
Value. A Head of Compliance at a mid-market company: "I believe cost/benefit this is the best value vendor."
What Conveyor users ask for
These are Conveyor's own customers on G2 describing what they want improved.
Answer tone. The most detailed criticism: "the tone is still not up to par - i do find myself rewriting answers (even if they are correct) so that the sentences flow better, or so that the tone is not so robotic." A separate reviewer wants different behaviour entirely: "I wish it'd bubble up the matching answers and let me decide. I personally don't want AI to write a brand new answer every time."
Portal coverage and plugin friction. "Wider compatibility with the other questionnaire web portal. Plugin does a job but it is little tedious to go to every webpage and upload the questionnaire and then go back to each web page again to apply the answer."
Structured spreadsheet fields. Two reviewers raise this independently. "They need to work on detecting the fields such as drop-downs and its relevant values. In past, I had to manually update the dropdown col. with its relevant values." And from a Head of Compliance: "The process of mapping cells for the AI questionnaire does not appear to function correctly, which results in extra manual work that could be avoided."
Document structure and permissions. "I would like the document folder structure in Conveyor to not be so flat. I would prefer a folder structure that can better accommodate multiple products, with the ability to have subfolders for each product."
Trust center depth. "The trust portal tool does not allow much customization." Another notes that "trust centers from other providers look nicer and psychologically give more of the 'secure and all compliant' feeling." A third raises roadmap concern: "Almost all efforts are focused on AI, RFPs and Automated Questionnaires leaving those who want and signed up for the Trust Center functionality left feeling a bit lost."
Search recall. "I really have to pick up the right keywords to search the relevant content otherwise it says 'No answers'."
Interface density. "Sometimes their UX can feel a bit busy or cluttered." Separately: "I would like the dashboard to be more user-friendly, especially for individuals who aren't involved in the actual security review process."
The main Conveyor alternatives in 2026
Five products realistically compete with Conveyor for security questionnaire automation.
Skypher. Questionnaire automation across every format buyers send, with a trust center on the same knowledge base. 40+ portal integrations, answer style control, role-based access control. Adobe, Deel and McKinsey are customers. Best fit for teams with format variety, portal volume, or multi-product permission requirements. Pricing is not public.
SafeBase (Drata). The most mature trust center in the category, acquired by Drata for $250 million in February 2025. Strong access control, buyer analytics, NDA workflow. Questionnaire automation runs through a Chrome extension covering a narrower portal set. Best fit if the trust center is the primary job. Our three-way comparison of SafeBase, Conveyor and Skypher covers this in detail.
Wolfia. Small, fast-moving, built around source citations for every answer. Flat pricing with no questionnaire caps. Best fit for teams whose main concern is verifying where an answer came from.
Loopio and Responsive (RFPIO). RFP response platforms that handle security questionnaires as one document type among many. Best fit if RFPs are the larger workload and security questionnaires are secondary.
Vanta and Drata. Compliance automation platforms with questionnaire features attached. Best fit if you need SOC 2 monitoring and questionnaires together. Overkill and expensive if you only need questionnaires.
How Skypher compares to Conveyor
We make security questionnaire automation software, so this section describes our own product. Four concrete differences rather than a feature list.
Portal coverage for online questionnaires
Skypher integrates with 40+ questionnaire platforms and pulls questionnaires from portals including OneTrust, ServiceNow, Archer, Ariba and Coupa into the platform, where you answer them and push responses back in one pass.
This is a different mechanism from a browser extension that assists inside the portal page. Portals are 19.2% of all questionnaires by our data, and the round-trip friction one Conveyor reviewer describes, going to each web page, uploading, then returning to apply answers, is what this design removes.
PDF and structured file handling
Skypher reads the questionnaire file as it arrives: complex Excel with macros and conditional logic, long Word templates, and PDFs including ones with tables or scans. PDFs go back as PDFs.
This deserves explaining rather than asserting, because "supports PDF" appears on nearly every vendor's feature table and means very little. A real questionnaire is not a list of questions. It has structure: separate fields for the question, the answer and the document reference, Yes/No macros, dropdown menus with defined value sets, conditional logic, multiple tabs. A tool that cannot parse that structure cannot complete the file. You extract questions by hand and paste answers back, which is most of the work.
That is the same underlying issue behind the two G2 comments about dropdown detection and cell mapping. Reading the file is the easy part. Filling it back in correctly is the hard part.
Granular permissions and role-based access control
Skypher supports role-based access control with granular permissions over who can view, edit and approve what.
For companies with several products, regulated business units, or a review chain running through legal and engineering, permission depth is usually what decides whether a tool can be rolled out beyond one team. It is the area the Conveyor reviewer is gesturing at when asking for subfolders per product instead of a flat structure.
Controlling the tone and length of AI answers
Skypher gives three answer styles: short answer, precise, and a fully custom prompt written against your own communication guidelines. An agent inside the questionnaire also rephrases individual answers in place, so you can adjust one response without regenerating the rest.
This exists because of the exact complaint the G2 reviewer raises. Security teams give the minimum necessary, since more detail invites more follow-up questions. An answer that is technically correct but three times longer than what your team would send still costs you an edit. Controlling output at generation time removes the edit rather than making it faster.
The rest of the stack
Skypher runs as an automation layer over tools you already use: questionnaire intake and tracking in Salesforce, review and approval in Slack and Teams, and continuous sync with OneDrive, SharePoint, Google Drive, Confluence, Notion and your website, so the knowledge base maintains itself as source documents change. Answers carry source citations and confidence scores. Past questionnaires can be set to expire automatically so stale content does not resurface.
Adobe, Deel and McKinsey are customers, across 200+ enterprise customers at 96% accuracy. Adobe went from two weeks to two hours per questionnaire. You can book a demo and send us a real questionnaire to test.
Two things we will not claim
Accuracy is not a differentiator here. Conveyor publishes 96% answer accuracy. So do we. Anyone presenting that number as a reason to pick one over the other is selling you something.
Unlimited seats is not a differentiator either. Both products include unlimited users with no per-seat fee.
Who should choose Conveyor, and who should look at alternatives
Choose Conveyor if the trust center is your centre of gravity and questionnaires are the secondary job, your questionnaires arrive mostly through portals their extension already covers, you want public pricing you can budget against without a sales call, and you value support that responds quickly. Their reviewers are consistently happy, and that is not a small thing.
Look at Skypher if questionnaires arrive across many formats including PDFs and structurally complex Excel, a meaningful share come through portals you need covered natively rather than through a plugin, you need permission granularity across products or business units, or your team keeps rewriting technically correct AI answers to match how you actually write.
Look at SafeBase if the trust center is nearly the whole requirement and questionnaire automation is a nice-to-have.
Look at neither if you want compliance monitoring and SOC 2 automation in the same subscription. That is a different category, and buying a questionnaire tool to get it will disappoint you.
Conveyor vs Skypher compared
Skypher rows describe our product. Conveyor rows are sourced from conveyor.com and G2 on the dates noted and may have changed since.
FAQ
Is Conveyor a good security questionnaire tool?
Yes. G2 reviewers rate Conveyor 4 to 5 stars and consistently report cutting questionnaire turnaround from weeks to days, fast implementation, and responsive support. The most common improvement requests are wider portal coverage, better parsing of structured spreadsheet fields such as dropdowns, deeper permissions, and more control over the tone of generated answers.
How much does Conveyor cost?
As of July 2026, Conveyor's pricing page listed a free tier with 10 trust center credits per month, a Business tier starting at $9,600 per year including 100 trust center credits and 20 questionnaire credits, and a custom Enterprise tier. Conveyor pricing is credit-based with unlimited seats and no per-user fees. Check their pricing page for current figures.
What are the best Conveyor alternatives?
The main Conveyor alternatives are Skypher, SafeBase (now part of Drata), Wolfia, and the RFP-first platforms Loopio and Responsive. Skypher fits teams needing broad format and portal coverage, granular role-based permissions, and control over AI answer tone. SafeBase fits trust-center-first teams. Vanta and Drata bundle questionnaire features with compliance automation, which is worth it only if you need both.
Which security questionnaire tool integrates with the most vendor portals?
Skypher integrates with 40+ questionnaire platforms including OneTrust, ServiceNow, Archer, Ariba and Coupa, pulling questionnaires into the platform and pushing completed answers back. Conveyor uses a browser extension for portal work, and its G2 reviewers specifically request wider portal compatibility. If most of your questionnaires arrive as portal links rather than files, test portal coverage with your actual portals during evaluation.
Does Conveyor handle questionnaires that arrive as PDFs or complex Excel files?
Conveyor supports common document formats. Two G2 reviewers in October 2025 reported gaps in structured spreadsheet handling specifically, one on detecting dropdown fields and their value sets, another on cell mapping producing extra manual work. If most of your questionnaires arrive as structurally complex Excel workbooks or PDFs, test with a real customer file during evaluation rather than a clean sample. Our guide to questionnaire formats and where they break covers what to watch for, and our roundup of questionnaire automation tools compares the wider field.
