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

What Is the Difference Between SOC 2 and SOC 3?

SOC 2 and SOC 3 are both security attestation reports published under the System and Organization Controls framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Both are produced through the same underlying audit process, both assess a service organization’s controls against the AICPA’s Trust Service Criteria, and both are relevant to organizations that handle customer data. The critical difference is what each report contains and who can receive it: SOC 2 is a detailed, restricted-use report shared under NDA with specific customers and prospects, while SOC 3 is a summarized, general-use document that organizations can publish publicly without restriction.

Understanding this distinction — and its practical implications for your compliance strategy, sales process, and vendor relationships — is the purpose of this article.

📌 TL;DR — Key Takeaways
• SOC 2 and SOC 3 come from the same audit — you cannot get a SOC 3 without first completing a SOC 2
• SOC 2 is detailed and restricted-use: shared under NDA with enterprise buyers and procurement teams
• SOC 3 is a public summary: suitable for websites, marketing, and broad distribution
• Most enterprise buyers require SOC 2, not SOC 3 — SOC 3 is a complement, not a substitute
• Getting both from the same auditor typically adds only a small incremental cost

What Is a SOC 2 Report?

A SOC 2 report is a formal attestation by an independent, AICPA-licensed auditor confirming that a service organization’s information security controls have been examined and found to meet the applicable Trust Service Criteria. The report is comprehensive: it includes a detailed description of the organization’s system, a management assertion, the auditor’s opinion, and — in the case of a Type II report — the results of testing performed across an observation period of typically six to twelve months.

SOC 2 reports cover some or all of five Trust Service Criteria: Security (mandatory for all reports), Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy. The Security criteria covers the foundational controls that protect systems from unauthorized access. The remaining four are optional and selected based on the nature of the vendor’s service and the expectations of their customers.

Because SOC 2 reports contain detailed information about a company’s systems, testing procedures, and specific control implementations, they are classified as restricted-use documents. Organizations do not post their SOC 2 reports publicly. Instead, they share them under NDA with customers, prospects, or auditors who have a legitimate need to review the information. This restriction exists because the reports contain sensitive operational details and because AICPA professional standards require that restricted-use reports be distributed only to parties who understand their purpose and limitations.

What Is a SOC 3 Report?

A SOC 3 report is a condensed, public-facing version of a SOC 2. It is produced by the same auditor, from the same audit engagement, and it conveys the same high-level conclusion: that the organization’s controls have been examined by an independent auditor and found to meet the relevant Trust Service Criteria. What the SOC 3 does not include is the detailed testing methodology, the specific controls examined, the test results, or the description of the system at the level of detail contained in a SOC 2.

Because SOC 3 reports are designed for general use, they can be posted on a company’s website, included in marketing materials, linked from a trust center, and distributed freely to anyone without NDA or restriction. The AICPA explicitly designed SOC 3 for this purpose: it allows organizations to communicate their security attestation status to a broad audience without exposing the operational detail that makes SOC 2 a restricted document.

One important technical point: you cannot obtain a SOC 3 without first completing a SOC 2. The SOC 3 is derived from the SOC 2 audit — it is not an independent assessment. If you have a current SOC 2, your auditor can typically issue a SOC 3 for a modest incremental fee, sometimes as little as a few hundred dollars, because the underlying audit work is already complete.

SOC 2 vs SOC 3: A Direct Comparison

The Same Audit, Two Different Outputs

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about SOC 2 and SOC 3 is that they are not two separate audits. They are two different outputs from a single audit engagement. When an AICPA-licensed auditor conducts a SOC 2 examination, they are producing the material needed for both the detailed SOC 2 report and the summarized SOC 3 report simultaneously. The audit procedures — the control testing, the evidence review, the system description work — are the same regardless of which report types you intend to publish.

This is why the incremental cost of adding a SOC 3 to a SOC 2 engagement is typically so low. The additional work is primarily the preparation of the shortened, general-use document, not any new audit procedures. If you are pursuing SOC 2 compliance and believe a public-facing attestation would be valuable for your go-to-market, asking your auditor about adding a SOC 3 is almost always worth the minimal additional cost.

Why SOC 3 Exists and Who It Is For

SOC 3 was designed to solve a specific problem: service organizations wanted to communicate their security attestation status to a broad audience — including website visitors, prospective customers at the top of the funnel, and general market observers — without disclosing the operational details that make SOC 2 a restricted document. Before SOC 3 existed, companies either had to share their full SOC 2 broadly (violating its restricted-use nature) or had no way to publicly signal their compliance status.

In practice, SOC 3 reports are most commonly used on company security and trust pages, in response to general prospect inquiries that don’t yet warrant sharing a full SOC 2 under NDA, in marketing collateral for broad distribution, and as a credential signal in competitive situations before a formal procurement process begins.

Why SOC 2 Remains the Enterprise Standard

Despite the convenience of SOC 3’s public availability, enterprise procurement teams and vendor risk managers almost universally require the full SOC 2 report. The reason is straightforward: the people responsible for evaluating vendor security need the detail, not the summary. A SOC 3 tells them that an auditor found the controls to be adequate. A SOC 2 Type II tells them exactly which controls were tested, what the testing procedures were, what the results were, and whether any exceptions were identified.

For a vendor risk analyst at a financial institution, a healthcare company, or a large enterprise with stringent third-party risk requirements, the SOC 3 summary is insufficient. They need the testing results because they are accountable for justifying their vendor approval decision to their own internal auditors and regulators. A high-level auditor opinion does not give them that evidentiary basis. The full SOC 2 does.

This means that while SOC 3 is a useful complement to a SOC 2, it is not a substitute in enterprise procurement contexts. Companies that pursue only SOC 3 will find they still need to produce a SOC 2 when serious enterprise deals arrive. Given that you cannot have SOC 3 without SOC 2, the practical implication is simple: always pursue SOC 2 first, and add SOC 3 if the public credential has go-to-market value.

How SOC 3 Interacts With RFPs and Security Questionnaires

In the context of responding to RFPs and vendor security questionnaires, the two reports serve different roles. When a security questionnaire asks “Do you hold a SOC 2 report?” the answer should be your SOC 2 — shared under NDA as part of the procurement process. The SOC 3 does not satisfy that request.

Where SOC 3 is genuinely useful in the sales process is at the top-of-funnel stage. When a prospect is evaluating a shortlist of vendors before issuing a formal RFP or security questionnaire, a publicly accessible SOC 3 on your trust page signals that you have been through a formal audit process. This can help your company make the shortlist in the first place. Some organizations also combine a linked SOC 3 with a statement that “SOC 2 Type II is available under NDA” — a pairing that requires no additional audit work and gives both broad and detailed audiences what they need.

What Each Report Actually Contains

Understanding the structural difference helps clarify why enterprise buyers require SOC 2 and why SOC 3 cannot substitute for it. A SOC 2 Type II report typically contains: a management assertion letter; the independent auditor’s opinion; a detailed description of the service organization’s system, including infrastructure, data, people, procedures, and software; a description of each control relevant to the Trust Service Criteria in scope; the testing procedures applied to each control; and the results of that testing, including any exceptions identified and management’s responses to those exceptions.

A SOC 3 report contains: the auditor’s opinion and the management assertion. That is essentially it. No system description, no control details, no testing procedures, no results. The SOC 3 is the conclusion without the evidence. For a prospect who wants to know whether you passed the audit, SOC 3 is sufficient. For an enterprise buyer who needs to document their due diligence, it is not.

Should Your Company Get a SOC 3?

The decision should be driven by how your company uses its compliance credentials in the market. If you have a self-service or product-led growth motion, a publicly available SOC 3 can meaningfully reduce friction at the top of the funnel — prospects who might hesitate to start a trial because they cannot verify your security posture can see your SOC 3 on your website and proceed with confidence. If your go-to-market is primarily outbound enterprise sales, SOC 3 adds less incremental value because you will be sharing your full SOC 2 with serious prospects anyway.

The cost argument for getting both is straightforward: since the marginal cost of adding a SOC 3 to an existing SOC 2 engagement is small, any company that thinks it might benefit from a public-facing compliance credential should simply request it during the audit. The incremental benefit outweighs the minimal additional cost for almost every organization that has already committed to SOC 2.

SOC 3 and Trust Centers

Many SaaS companies now operate a dedicated trust center that consolidates their compliance credentials in one publicly accessible location. SOC 3 reports are a natural fit for trust centers: they are designed for general distribution, they are professionally formatted, and they provide an auditor’s independent opinion that carries more weight than a self-reported compliance status. The typical approach is to display the SOC 3 alongside other public credentials such as an ISO 27001 certificate, while noting that the full SOC 2 Type II is available under NDA. This approach satisfies broad top-of-funnel inquiries without exposing operational detail, and reduces the volume of compliance document requests the team needs to handle manually.

SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3: The Full Picture

For completeness: SOC 1 is a separate report type designed for service organizations whose services affect the internal controls over financial reporting of their customers — payroll processors, financial data centers, and similar providers. It is not an information security report in the general sense, and most SaaS companies that handle customer data do not need a SOC 1. SOC 2 is the applicable standard for data security, availability, and privacy commitments. SOC 3 is the public-facing complement to it. These three report types were designed for different purposes and different audiences; the SOC 2 and SOC 3 pairing is what matters most for most technology vendors.

A Note on Using Compliance Reports in RFP Responses

For teams that respond regularly to RFPs and vendor security questionnaires, having current SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the response process. Large sections of most security questionnaires can be satisfied by referencing the SOC 2 report directly. Steerlab.ai helps teams operationalize this: it learns from your approved SOC 2 documentation and past responses to automatically draft accurate answers to incoming compliance questions, so your team spends time reviewing rather than rewriting from scratch.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between SOC 2 and SOC 3?

SOC 2 is a detailed, restricted-use report shared under NDA with enterprise buyers and procurement teams. SOC 3 is a condensed, general-use summary that can be published publicly without restriction. Both are produced by the same underlying audit, but SOC 2 contains full control testing detail while SOC 3 contains only the auditor’s opinion.

Can you get a SOC 3 without a SOC 2?

No. SOC 3 is derived from a SOC 2 audit and cannot be produced independently. You must complete a SOC 2 engagement first. Once you have a SOC 2, your auditor can typically issue a SOC 3 for a small additional fee, since the underlying audit work is already complete.

Does a SOC 3 replace a SOC 2 for enterprise buyers?

No. Enterprise procurement teams and vendor risk managers almost always require the full SOC 2 report. SOC 3 lacks the control testing detail that enterprise due diligence requires. It can complement a SOC 2 strategy but does not substitute for it in formal procurement processes.

How much does a SOC 3 report cost?

When obtained alongside a SOC 2 from the same auditor, the incremental cost of a SOC 3 is typically modest — often a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. The underlying audit procedures are the same; the additional work is primarily in preparing the condensed general-use document.

What can I do with a SOC 3 that I cannot do with a SOC 2?

You can publish a SOC 3 publicly on your website, include it in marketing materials, post it on your trust center, and share it freely with anyone without an NDA. SOC 2 reports are restricted-use documents and cannot be publicly posted. SOC 3 lets organizations communicate their attestation status to a broad audience without disclosing operational control details.

Who typically requests a SOC 2 vs a SOC 3?

Enterprise procurement teams, information security analysts, and vendor risk managers request SOC 2 reports as part of formal vendor onboarding. SOC 3 is typically encountered by website visitors and early-stage prospects who want a high-level security signal before engaging in a formal evaluation.

When should a company pursue both SOC 2 and SOC 3?

Almost always — given the minimal incremental cost of adding a SOC 3 to an existing SOC 2 engagement. Any company that expects both enterprise deals (which require SOC 2) and a broader audience that benefits from a public trust signal (served by SOC 3) should request both during the same audit engagement.

Is SOC 3 recognized outside North America?

SOC 2 and SOC 3 are AICPA standards primarily recognized by North American enterprise buyers. Outside North America, particularly in Europe and Asia-Pacific, ISO 27001 is the more commonly required security attestation. International companies often pursue both SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to satisfy requirements in different markets. SOC 3 has limited standalone recognition outside North America but can still serve as a general trust signal on a public security page.