SOC 2 Compliance Services in Noida and Greater Noida

Because two firms do two different jobs, and one all-in number hides the split. Our readiness and audit-support fee is a published band of ₹1.5 lakh to ₹4.5 lakh, an indicative band confirmed in writing after scoping. The CPA firm's attestation fee is separate, quoted by that firm and invoiced by it, and it is not SecureRoot revenue; our cost guide puts the indicative market range at ₹2 lakh to ₹5 lakh for a Type 1 and ₹5 lakh to ₹12 lakh for a Type 2. A compliance platform, if you use one, is billed annually by its vendor and recurs whether or not you are mid-audit. Your own team's time is the fourth line and the one most quotes omit. We will not quote a fixed all-in price that covers the CPA fee, because that fee is not ours to fix.

A licensed CPA firm issues and signs it under the AICPA attestation standards, and it must stay independent of whoever designed and implemented the controls, which is exactly why we cannot sign yours. In practice it works like this. During scoping we introduce the partner firms we work with; you compare them on fee, timeline and sector experience; you contract with the one you choose directly, so the engagement letter is between you and them and never routed through us. We take no share of that fee and no referral payment. If you already have a CPA firm that performs SOC 2 examinations, we work alongside it instead. Verify any firm you are offered on its state board's own register rather than on a consultant's page, ours included.

No, SecureRoot is not a CERT-In empanelled auditing organisation, and we would rather you read that here than discover it later. It is worth knowing what empanelment is and is not. It is an Indian scheme that matters where a regulator or a tender specifically requires an empanelled auditor's signature on a formal VAPT report. It has no bearing on a SOC 2, which is an attestation report written under the AICPA standards and signed by a licensed CPA firm; CERT-In does not empanel firms to sign SOC 2 reports and no Indian scheme does. A competitor ranking for this search leads with its empanelment, which is a genuine credential for the work it applies to and simply not the credential this report needs. Where an empanelled signature is genuinely required for something, we say so and that auditor signs.

Scope is chosen, not fixed, and choosing it well is most of the cost control. Every SOC 2 covers the Security criterion. The other four, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality and Privacy, are included only if they apply to what you promise customers, and each one you add brings its own controls, evidence and audit effort. Then there is the system boundary: which product, which environments, which supporting infrastructure and which subservice organisations your cloud and SaaS vendors count as. A boundary drawn too wide pulls systems into the examination that your customer never asked about. We scope against the request that started this, usually a security questionnaire or a contract clause, and then write the boundary down so the CPA firm quotes against the same thing you agreed.

Four things, and they are working documents rather than a certificate. A gap register listing each criterion in scope against what you hold today, marked as present, informal or missing. A control set written to your systems rather than to a template. An evidence register naming what has to be collected and how often, which in practice means items like access-review records, change-approval tickets, onboarding and offboarding checklists, backup-restore test results and vendor-review notes. And a readiness report that says plainly whether we think you would pass. We have not published a client-cleared excerpt from a real engagement and will not invent one; what we can do on the scoping call is walk you through the structure of each document.

They answer to different people, which is why a Noida SaaS company usually needs both. A SOC 2 is written for your customer's auditors and covers the Trust Services Criteria you put in scope. The DPDP Act is Indian law, applies whether or not a customer raises it, and its core obligations are enforceable from 13 May 2027. The overlap is real but partial: the access controls, encryption, logging and vendor diligence a SOC 2 examines also evidence the Act's reasonable security safeguards. What does not transfer are the privacy duties, which are notice, consent meeting the Act's standard, data-principal rights workflows, children's data, retention limits and breach intimation to the Data Protection Board. Doing the overlapping control work once, under one scope, is materially cheaper than discovering the gap a year later.