Conveyor Alternative — Why teams switch to FillBase

Conveyor is a solid product. Trust center, AI questionnaire automation, NDA workflows, customer-facing security portal — they've raised $19M and built a comprehensive platform.

But "comprehensive platform" isn't what everyone needs. If you're evaluating Conveyor and wondering whether there's a better fit for your team and budget, here's an honest comparison.

Why teams look for Conveyor alternatives

1. Pricing

Conveyor requires a sales conversation. No public pricing. Teams typically report costs of $1,000+/month, often with annual contracts. That's $12,000+ per year committed before you've completed your first DDQ.

For a 30-person startup completing 3 DDQs per month, that's expensive for one use case. The math: each DDQ costs you $4,000 in tool spend alone. At that price point, you need to be very sure the tool delivers value beyond what a simpler, cheaper alternative provides.

2. Platform scope vs. your actual problem

Conveyor sells a platform: trust center + questionnaires + NDA + customer portal. If you just need DDQ automation, you're paying for features you won't use.

Ask yourself: what's the actual problem I'm solving?

• "I need a public-facing security page for prospects" → Conveyor's trust center is genuinely good at this.
• "I need DDQs completed faster" → You're paying for a trust center, NDA automation, and a customer portal you don't need.
• "I need both" → Conveyor might be the right choice. But if you already have a trust center through Vanta or Drata, you're duplicating functionality.

3. Implementation time

Full platform setup takes weeks — trust center configuration, portal customization, team training, content library setup. If you have a DDQ due Friday, that doesn't help.

The implementation timeline also means a longer feedback loop. You won't know if Conveyor actually solves your DDQ problem until weeks after signing the contract. With a lighter tool, you can validate the approach in an hour.

4. Annual contract commitment

Most Conveyor deals include an annual contract. That's a 12-month commitment to a platform you haven't fully tested on real workloads. For a startup that might pivot, adjust pricing, or change its sales motion, that's a significant lock-in.

5. Engineering overhead

Conveyor's platform approach means more surface area to configure and maintain:

• Trust center content needs to be kept current
• Portal settings need to match your compliance posture
• NDA templates need legal review
• Browser extensions need to be deployed to the team

Each feature adds value if you use it. Each feature adds overhead whether you use it or not.

FillBase vs Conveyor: Side by side

When Conveyor is the better choice

Be honest — Conveyor is better if:

• You need a public-facing trust center. This is Conveyor's core strength and they do it well. Prospects can self-serve security information, reducing inbound questionnaire volume.
• You want NDA workflow automation. If NDA processing is a bottleneck alongside DDQs, Conveyor handles both.
• You want a customer self-serve security portal. Let prospects answer their own security questions before sending a formal DDQ.
• You have budget for $12K+/year and want an all-in-one platform. The platform approach reduces the number of tools you manage.
• You're Series B+ with a dedicated security team. A team that can own the platform, keep the trust center updated, and leverage all features.

When FillBase is the better choice

FillBase wins when:

• Your primary pain is DDQ completion speed — that's the problem you need solved today, not next month.
• You want to start in 30 minutes, not 3 weeks. Upload SOC 2, submit DDQ, review answers.
• Your budget is under $7K/year for DDQ automation. FillBase's Growth plan at $599/month is $7,188/year — roughly half of Conveyor's entry price, with no annual lock-in.
• You prefer a Slack-native workflow. Submit DDQs without leaving Slack. @fillbase + attach the file + get a completed questionnaire back.
• You're a CTO doing this yourself and want the fastest path from "DDQ received" to "DDQ submitted."
• You don't need a trust center (or already have one through Vanta or Drata).
• You want to test before committing. FillBase's free tier lets you complete real DDQs with zero financial risk.

The overlap question: Do you need both?

Some teams use both — Conveyor for the trust center and customer portal, FillBase for the actual DDQ completion workflow. This makes sense when:

• Your trust center reduces inbound DDQ volume (Conveyor)
• The DDQs that do come in get completed fast (FillBase)
• You're not paying for DDQ automation twice — Conveyor's trust center is the value, FillBase handles execution

But for most startups and mid-market companies, this is over-engineered. Pick the tool that solves your biggest problem first.

What switching from Conveyor looks like

If you're on Conveyor and the DDQ automation isn't justifying the platform cost:

1. Keep what works. If you're using Conveyor's trust center and prospects find it valuable, keep it. Cancel only if the entire platform is underutilized.
2. Export your content. Download your approved answers and security documentation.
3. Upload to FillBase. SOC 2, policies, exported answers — FillBase ingests them and builds your knowledge base automatically.
4. Submit your next DDQ. First one takes 30–45 minutes including review. Fifth one takes 15 minutes.

The transition takes less than an hour of active work.

The total cost comparison

For a Series A startup doing 5 DDQs per month:

If DDQ completion speed is your problem, FillBase delivers the solution at 40–60% of the cost with zero lock-in. If you need a security platform beyond DDQs, Conveyor's additional features justify the premium.

Frequently asked questions

Does FillBase have a trust center like Conveyor? No. FillBase is purpose-built for DDQ completion. If you need a trust center, Conveyor, Vanta, or Drata are better options. Many teams pair FillBase with an existing trust center from their compliance platform.

Can FillBase handle portal-based questionnaires? Yes. FillBase supports online portals (OneTrust, ServiceNow, etc.) in addition to Excel, Word, and PDF. Conveyor handles portals through a browser extension; FillBase handles them through direct integration.

Is Conveyor's AI better than FillBase's for DDQ answers? Different approach. Conveyor uses AI alongside a content library. FillBase uses grounded AI that generates answers directly from your uploaded documents with automatic source citations. The quality depends on your use case — if your content library is well-maintained, both produce good results. If you prefer "upload docs and go" over "build and maintain a library," FillBase is faster.

What if I need NDA automation too? FillBase doesn't automate NDAs. If NDA processing is a significant bottleneck, Conveyor's combined approach has merit. For most startups, NDAs are handled by legal directly — it's the DDQs that create the time drain.

The bottom line

Conveyor is a platform. FillBase is a tool. If you need a platform, evaluate Conveyor. If you need your DDQs completed accurately and fast, try FillBase for free and see if it solves the problem before committing $12K+ to a platform purchase.

For a full feature-by-feature breakdown, see our FillBase vs Conveyor comparison page. Also compare with Loopio, Vanta, and all other alternatives.

Try FillBase free — complete your first DDQ in minutes →