B2B SaaS companies consistently prioritize SOC 2 over SOC 3 because only SOC 2 delivers the level of detail and assurance required by enterprise customers during procurement and security assessments. In contrast, SOC 3 serves as a high-level marketing asset but does not satisfy stringent compliance or due diligence needs. Understanding the detailed differences between these two reports clarifies why SOC 2 dominates in business-to-business contexts while SOC 3 finds its place in public relations and sales enablement.
What Are SOC 2 and SOC 3 Reports?
Both SOC 2 and SOC 3 assessments are grounded in the Trust Services Criteria (TSC) established by the AICPA, covering principles like Security (mandatory) as well as Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy (optional). However, their intent, scope, and level of detail set them apart distinctly.
SOC 2 is a comprehensive, confidential audit report tailored for enterprise clients, auditors, and partners. It delves into the company’s system, management’s assertions, detailed descriptions of controls, test methods, and actual results. SOC 2 is available in Type I (a point-in-time review of control design) and Type II (effectiveness of controls over a review period, usually 6-12 months).
SOC 3 is a condensed, public-facing summary that verifies alignment with the Trust Services Criteria but omits details like control tests, evidence, and results. SOC 3 is available only as Type II and is designed for broad sharing without revealing sensitive or proprietary data.
Detailed vs. High-Level Reporting: The Core Difference
B2B SaaS companies prioritize SOC 2 because it provides in-depth transparency about internal controls, methods, and outcomes—information crucial for risk evaluation and regulatory compliance. Enterprise customers need to verify specific practices, technologies, and processes, which SOC 3 does not disclose. For these clients, only SOC 2 serves as an acceptable basis for vendor assessments, third-party audits, and internal reviews, especially when a formal audit trail and technical assurance are required.
In contrast, SOC 3 offers a high-level confirmation without detailed evidence or procedural information. It confirms that a provider assessed its controls and met the criteria, but it does not allow customers to audit or scrutinize individual controls, risks, or gaps. For enterprise procurement, this summary-level assurance is insufficient.
Main Use Cases: Enterprise Compliance vs. Marketing Trust
Enterprise clients often mandate a full SOC 2 report as part of their purchasing process to validate the suitability and effectiveness of the provider’s controls. Without the granular evidence and systematic breakdown present in SOC 2, these clients will not accept a vendor or onboard a system, making SOC 2 a non-negotiable requirement in the B2B SaaS sector.
SOC 3 reports help build general market trust. They are optimized for public consumption, such as display on websites and inclusion in sales presentations. SOC 3 improves confidence among prospects or partners who do not require or are not entitled to confidential information. However, it cannot replace SOC 2 in the eyes of enterprise procurement or compliance teams.
Confidentiality, Accessibility, and Audience
SOC 2 reports are considered confidential information. Sharing typically requires a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), as they contain proprietary details and findings. The primary audience for SOC 2 includes enterprise customers, auditors, risk officers, and legal or compliance personnel. This controlled distribution ensures that sensitive security and operational data do not fall into competitors’ or bad actors’ hands.
SOC 3, in contrast, is intended for an unrestricted audience. It is safely published on public platforms because it excludes confidential or sensitive implementation details. Public prospects, partners, and non-technical stakeholders can access SOC 3 at any time without exposing the SaaS provider to undue risk.
Process and Content Structure
SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports are generated from the same audit process under the Trust Services Criteria. The features diverge in the way results are documented and shared. SOC 2 includes: a system overview, management’s written assertion of controls, auditor’s test descriptions, results, and detailed evidence of compliance. This depth supports client audits, internal reviews, and regulatory documentation.
SOC 3 provides a surface-level summary: an overview of the services and auditor’s opinion confirming compliance. Detailed descriptions of control tests, methodologies, procedures, or any results are purposely excluded. SOC 3 is often produced directly from the findings of the SOC 2 Type II audit, but it does not substitute the depth or assurance offered by the underlying audit.
Why B2B SaaS Companies Must Lead With SOC 2
The core reason for prioritizing SOC 2 is to meet the advanced assurance needs of B2B clients. Enterprise buyers must verify not only whether criteria are met but also how controls are implemented, assessed, and maintained. Procurement, legal, and security teams conduct comprehensive risk analysis using SOC 2’s breakdown of controls, including elements such as multi-factor authentication for security or documented business continuity for availability. The absence of these specifics in SOC 3 causes immediate rejection by security-conscious organizations.
Additionally, many SaaS providers maintain both reports: SOC 2 is provided to customers under NDA upon request, while SOC 3 is posted publicly. This dual strategy accelerates sales by satisfying marketing needs without compromising the confidentiality required during detailed customer reviews. While both reports originate from the same audit, only SOC 2 aligns with B2B compliance expectations and procurement standards.
SOC 3: Valuable, Yet Limited
Although SOC 3 plays an important role in building public trust and supporting the sales funnel, its limitations in detail and evidence make it nonviable for any formal third-party evaluation, especially by organizations seeking to understand the operational impact or security posture of a SaaS vendor. Prospects who receive only a SOC 3 will inevitably require a SOC 2 before completing any serious vendor onboarding, and nearly all competitive SaaS firms expect to accommodate this demand.
The public, summary-level nature of SOC 3 ensures it cannot compromise internal methodologies or security measures. However, it also precludes in-depth scrutiny, which is indispensable for comprehensive vendor risk evaluation and compliance audits in business-to-business relationships.
Summary: Assurance, Detail, and Audience Define Priority
SaaS providers in the B2B space lead with SOC 2 because it delivers the detail, evidence, and accountability enterprise clients require for compliance, procurement, and ongoing assurance. SOC 3 enhances public perception and serves marketing purposes but cannot fulfill the role demanded by deeper risk assessments or procurement processes. The choice is defined by the audience and the need for confidential detail: SOC 2 secures deals, SOC 3 fosters trust, but detailed assurance always takes priority for the enterprise market. As such, B2B SaaS companies who wish to meet the evolving standards of their customers continue to invest in and prioritize the SOC 2 framework above all.
Source: https://www.thesoc2.com/post/why-most-b2b-saas-companies-skip-soc-3
