Why most B2B SaaS companies skip SOC 3?

Why most B2B SaaS companies skip SOC 3?

How SOC 2 and SOC 3 differ?

SOC 2 and SOC 3 are both based on the Trust Services Criteria, covering security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. While they share the same foundation, they diverge significantly in purpose and level of detail, which leads to different roles in the sales cycle.

SOC 2 is a comprehensive report that outlines the system architecture, internal processes, responsibilities, and controls, along with detailed testing results from an independent auditor. It is restricted to customers, partners, and due diligence teams because it contains sensitive information that could reveal aspects of the company’s infrastructure or security posture.

SOC 3, in contrast, is a high-level, publicly shareable summary of the SOC 2 audit. It includes no details on control tests or specific findings. It merely confirms that the company met the Trust Services Criteria. Importantly, SOC 3 cannot exist without SOC 2, making it an add-on rather than a standalone assurance tool.

The SOC 2 journey inside a B2B SaaS company

To understand why SOC 3 is often deprioritized, it’s helpful to look at the typical SOC 2 journey for a SaaS provider. The process begins with a readiness assessment, during which the organization identifies gaps in documentation, infrastructure, and operational procedures.

This is followed by a remediation phase, which usually involves implementing missing controls, such as multi-factor authentication, structured access management, centralized logging, formal incident response processes, and standards for code repositories and endpoint devices.

Once the foundational work is complete, the company undergoes a SOC 2 Type I audit, which verifies whether controls are designed appropriately at a single point in time. Afterward, the company can pursue SOC 2 Type II, which evaluates whether those controls operated effectively over a continuous period, typically several to twelve months. For enterprise buyers, Type II carries significantly more weight and credibility.

After earning SOC 2 Type II, the company must renew the report annually to maintain trust with customers. Only at this stage does SOC 3 become an option as a public summary of the completed SOC 2 audit.

SOC wall: the pivotal point in the sales process

Many SaaS companies encounter what is commonly known as the SOC wall. This occurs the moment a potential customer asks, “Do you have a SOC 2 report?” If the answer is no, the sales process often stalls. The conversation shifts to extensive security questionnaires, risk assessments, or may even be terminated altogether.

This is why SOC 2 Type II has effectively become a prerequisite for engaging mid-market and enterprise customers. It shortens due diligence cycles, minimizes the need for in-depth questionnaires, and builds confidence in the provider’s maturity. In contrast, SOC 3 does not influence these discussions at all, since it lacks the detail required for risk assessment.

Why SOC 3 offers limited value

Although SOC 3 can support marketing efforts, its value in the sales and procurement process remains minimal.

First, customers rarely request SOC 3. Security teams need detailed technical evidence to evaluate vendor risk, and SOC 3 does not provide the level of assurance required for informed decision-making.

Second, SOC 3 does not expand compliance coverage. It introduces no new controls, criteria, or documentation. It is simply a different presentation of the same audit results found in SOC 2.

Third, creating and maintaining SOC 3 requires additional effort. Every SOC 2 renewal means that the SOC 3 report must also be updated. For fast-growing SaaS companies focused on product development, this extra workload often lacks meaningful return on investment.

When SOC 3 can still be useful

Despite its limitations, SOC 3 can play a supporting role in specific contexts. It works well as a public trust signal that demonstrates the company follows recognized security standards. Many organizations place it in their Security or Trust Center pages to strengthen transparency.

SOC 3 can also be valuable when dealing with smaller customers who lack dedicated security teams. For them, a simplified confirmation of compliance may be sufficient to establish confidence in the provider’s operational maturity.

Automating SOC 2 as a more effective investment

Instead of investing time in maintaining a SOC 3 report, many SaaS companies focus on automating SOC 2 workflows. Modern compliance platforms streamline evidence collection, monitor control performance, and simplify annual renewals. This approach directly addresses customer expectations and operational demands, making it considerably more cost effective than producing SOC 3.

What truly matters for B2B SaaS organizations

For SaaS companies aiming to sell into the mid-market or enterprise segment, the top priority is obtaining and maintaining SOC 2 Type II. This report unlocks enterprise procurement, validates security maturity, and accelerates sales cycles. SOC 3 can certainly support marketing communication, but it is not required to win deals, pass vendor assessments, or complete onboarding processes.

Summary

Most B2B SaaS companies skip SOC 3 because it does not provide meaningful value in the areas that matter most: sales enablement, enterprise procurement, and compliance assurance. It is not required by customers, does not replace SOC 2, and does not influence due diligence outcomes. At the same time, the limited business benefit rarely justifies the additional work. Focusing on SOC 2 Type II and automating compliance processes best aligns with market expectations and the practical needs of SaaS organizations.