SOC 3 Report: Definition, Requirements, and SOC 2 Differences

What Is SOC 3?

SOC 3 is a general-use attestation report in the AICPA's System and Organization Controls suite. A licensed CPA firm issues it after examining a service organization's controls against the Trust Services Criteria and states whether those controls were effective. The report omits detailed test results, so the organization can publish it openly. In this context, SOC does not mean Security Operations Center.

SOC 3 uses the same criteria as SOC 2 and is typically issued from the same examination. The difference is the audience. SOC 2 reports are restricted-use documents, usually shared under NDA, while a SOC 3 report is written for public distribution. As Apptega's SOC 2 guide explains, a SOC 3 report leaves out the description of the service auditor's tests of controls and results, so it can be shared with the public.

‍

Why It Matters to Security & Compliance Leaders

Enterprise procurement. Buyers often ask for assurance before they send a full security questionnaire. A public SOC 3 answers that first request without an NDA exchange.

Vendor risk assessments. Teams running third-party risk management programs can screen a vendor's SOC 3 quickly, then request the SOC 2 report for vendors that handle sensitive data.

Audit readiness. SOC 3 rests on a SOC 2-level examination, so preparation overlaps almost entirely. It adds a shareable output, not a second control program.

Regulatory alignment. No law requires SOC 3. It can support vendor oversight expectations but does not establish regulatory compliance.

Risks & Business Impact

• Audit failure risk: A qualified or adverse opinion weakens the report's value as a trust signal. The organization decides whether to publish.
• Contractual exposure: Customer security addenda sometimes require current SOC reports. A lapse can delay renewals.
• Regulatory penalties: None attach to SOC 3 itself. Calling it a certification, or implying it covers more than the stated system and period, creates misrepresentation risk.
• Operational burden: Controls must operate consistently across the examination period, with evidence retained for the CPA firm.
• Reputation risk: An out-of-date published report signals a lapse.
• Security exposure: The report covers only the described system and selected criteria.

Requirements & Control Expectations

Control domains. Security is required and maps to the Common Criteria, CC1 through CC9: control environment, communication and information, risk assessment, monitoring activities, control activities, logical and physical access, system operations, change management, and risk mitigation. Availability (A1), Confidentiality (C1), Processing Integrity (PI1), and Privacy (P1 through P8) are optional categories chosen by management.

Documentation. A SOC 3 report contains the practitioner's report, management's assertion, and a brief description of the system boundaries.

Evidence. The CPA firm tests evidence during the engagement. Detailed test procedures and results appear only in a SOC 2 Type 2 report, not in the SOC 3.

Monitoring. Most SOC 3 reports cover a period of time, and most organizations renew annually.

Audit involvement. An independent licensed CPA firm performs the examination and issues the opinion. Management signs the assertion.

Process Overview (Implementation Lifecycle)

1. Readiness assessment: Define the system boundary, choose the criteria categories, and inventory existing controls.
2. Gap analysis: Compare current controls and evidence against the Trust Services Criteria.
3. Remediation: Close gaps in policies, access controls, change management, and monitoring.
4. Control testing: Run internal tests so the controls operate as designed before the examination period starts.
5. Examination and report: Engage a CPA firm, scope the SOC 3 alongside any SOC 2, complete fieldwork, and receive the report.
6. Ongoing monitoring: Maintain evidence, track exceptions, and plan the next cycle.

Common Misconceptions

• "SOC 3 is a certification." It is an attestation report that contains an opinion. No accreditation body issues a certificate.
• "SOC 3 is a lighter audit than SOC 2." The examination is the same. Only the level of detail in the report differs.
• "SOC 3 replaces SOC 2." Security teams reviewing a critical vendor usually want the SOC 2 Type 2, because it shows the tests performed and their results.
• "A SOC 3 report proves legal compliance." It addresses the Trust Services Criteria for a described system and period. It does not address HIPAA, GDPR, or other legal obligations.

Framework Relationships & Crosswalks

• SOC 2: Same criteria and examination, different distribution. SOC 2 is restricted use and includes test results.
• SOC 1: Addresses controls relevant to a user entity's internal control over financial reporting, not the Trust Services Criteria.
• ISO 27001: A certification of an information security management system by an accredited body. It overlaps with SOC 3 in access control, change management, and monitoring, but the outputs differ.
• NIST CSF and NIST SP 800-53: Voluntary control frameworks. Mapping supports alignment with SOC criteria but does not make the two equivalent.
• HIPAA: Covered entities must obtain satisfactory assurances from business associates under 45 CFR 164.308(b). A SOC 3 can inform diligence but does not satisfy the Security Rule.
• PCI DSS: Validated through a Report on Compliance or self-assessment. SOC 3 is not a substitute.
• CMMC: Assessed against NIST SP 800-171 under 32 CFR Part 170. SOC 3 is not an accepted substitute.
• GDPR: Article 28 sets processor obligations. A SOC 3 can support due diligence but is not a GDPR certification.

How Compliance Automation Platforms Support This

Control mapping. A platform maps one set of controls to the Trust Services Criteria and to other frameworks, which is the practice described in Apptega's entry on control mapping.

Evidence collection. Centralized evidence tied to each control simplifies CPA sample requests.

Cross-framework alignment. The same evidence can support SOC 2, SOC 3, and ISO 27001 work.

Continuous monitoring. Ongoing control status shows gaps during the examination period.

Reporting. Dashboards and exports give leadership and auditors a current view. Apptega's 2025 State of Continuous Compliance Report, a survey of managed service and security providers, found that 66% primarily use a GRC or compliance automation platform.

Real-World Use Cases

• MSSPs: A managed security provider publishes a SOC 3 for its own service and keeps the SOC 2 Type 2 for client security teams under NDA.
• SaaS providers: A SaaS company posts its SOC 3 on a public trust page, then shares the SOC 2 in later deal stages.
• Healthcare: A health IT vendor uses a SOC 3 to support initial diligence. Covered entities still expect a business associate agreement and HIPAA-specific assurances.
• Financial services: A fintech vendor gives bank prospects a SOC 3 for screening. Banks applying the 2023 Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships typically need more detail for critical vendors.
• Government contractors: A contractor with a commercial product line uses a SOC 3 for private-sector buyers while pursuing FedRAMP or CMMC requirements separately.

‍