Skip to content
AuditGRC

Camms vs ControlVista

Updated August 28, 2026 · How we score

Camms (integrated risk, strategy and performance) and ControlVista (internal audit management built for the GCC) both compete in audit management software. Overall, ControlVista scores higher in our evaluation (8.8 vs 8.0), while ControlVista is the stronger regional fit for GCC organisations. The right choice depends on your context — the table below shows exactly where they differ.

Camms

4.0

Best for: Government entities and enterprises that want risk tied to strategy and performance reporting, with real regional support.

ControlVista

4.4

Best for: GCC internal audit functions that want the full IIA 2024 lifecycle — universe to committee reporting — with native Arabic and working papers on their own infrastructure.

Side-by-side comparison

Camms compared with ControlVista, attribute by attribute
Attribute Camms ControlVista
Overall score 8.0 8.8
Functionality 8.0 8.0
Ease of use 8.0 8.9
Value 7.9 8.9
Support 8.1 8.9
GCC fit 7.9 9.3
HQ Adelaide, Australia Doha, Qatar
Deployment Cloud On-premise, Private cloud (GCC)
Pricing model Module subscription; mid-market friendly Subscription, tiered; sized for the regional mid-market
Free trial No Yes
Data residency UAE hosting option via regional cloud On-premise as standard; private cloud hosting in the GCC available
Arabic support Yes Yes
Regional presence Dubai office; government and enterprise clients in UAE, KSA, Qatar Built and supported from Doha
Framework content ISO 31000, ISO 27001, GCC government risk frameworks IIA standards (2024), NCA ECC, ISO 27001, PDPPL, SOC 2, ADHICS

Camms: strengths and trade-offs

  • Genuine Middle East presence and Arabic support
  • Strategy-risk-performance linkage is distinctive
  • Strong dashboards and board reporting
  • Compliance framework automation is lighter than specialists
  • Riskonnect acquisition creates roadmap uncertainty

ControlVista: strengths and trade-offs

  • Full IIA 2024 lifecycle: universe, risk-based planning, fieldwork, findings, remediation and committee reporting
  • On-premise is the standard deployment — working papers stay on your own infrastructure
  • Bilingual at the schema level: Arabic and English committee packs from one engagement record
  • No audit data analytics, CAATs or statistical sampling today — gaps the vendor's own assessment names
  • Limited integration surface beyond the API

Bottom line

Choose Camms if: government entities and enterprises that want risk tied to strategy and performance reporting, with real regional support.

Choose ControlVista if: GCC internal audit functions that want the full IIA 2024 lifecycle — universe to committee reporting — with native Arabic and working papers on their own infrastructure.