Usually ISO 27001. For an Australian company selling in Australia, APAC or Europe, ISO 27001 is the credential buyers ask for. SOC 2 — an AICPA attestation report rather than a certificate — is the US-market default, and some US enterprise buyers require it. The deciding input is the geography of your pipeline.
Both provide independent assurance that your security controls operate, through two different mechanisms aimed at two different markets.
| ISO 27001 | SOC 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | An international standard for an information security management system (ISMS) | An attestation framework published by the AICPA, the US accounting body |
| Who examines you | An accredited certification body | A licensed CPA firm |
| What you hand a buyer | A certificate | A Type I or Type II report |
| How the assessment runs | Stage 1 (documentation review) then Stage 2 (interviews and evidence) | Type I examines control design at a point in time; Type II examines operation over a review period |
| Ongoing cycle | Annual surveillance audits; full recertification every three years | Reports are refreshed as buyers require — most ask how recent yours is |
| Home market | International; the default requirement in Australia, APAC and Europe | United States |
The difference in instrument matters in sales conversations. ISO 27001 produces a certificate you can list, with an accredited body standing behind it. SOC 2 produces a report, often long and often under NDA, which a buyer’s security team reads. Buyers generally ask for the instrument their own market uses.
On cost, only ISO 27001 has published Australian figures worth citing: at market rates, a certification audit (Stage 1 plus Stage 2) runs A$8,000–20,000 ex GST, with the full first-year picture in what ISO 27001 costs in Australia. SOC 2 examination fees are set by the CPA firm and vary with the scope and the report period, so a single quoted figure carries little information.
The geography of your revenue answers this more reliably than a framework comparison.
Selling in Australia and APAC: ISO 27001, in almost all cases. Australian enterprise questionnaires ask for it by name, and it is the recognised credential across the region. A SOC 2 report is rarely requested and sometimes requires explanation before it reassures.
Selling into Europe: ISO 27001 again. It is the international standard, and European procurement handles it more readily than a US attestation format.
Selling to US enterprise: SOC 2 appears here. It is the US-market default, and some US buyers name it as a hard procurement requirement. Others accept ISO 27001, as recognition has grown, though that acceptance has to be confirmed rather than assumed. Where the pipeline is dominated by US enterprise deals, SOC 2 first is often the correct sequence.
Selling to all three: companies at that stage frequently hold both. The order follows the nearest revenue, and the second credential costs less effort than the first, because the underlying work overlaps: access control, change management, logging and monitoring, incident response, vendor management and the policy layer feed both.
That overlap is what makes the decision low-risk for an Australian company choosing today. Building an ISO 27001 ISMS retains its value if a US deal later requires SOC 2, because the controls a CPA firm examines are largely controls the ISMS already operates and evidences. The additional work is engaging a CPA firm and preparing a report rather than rebuilding the security program.
Secure60 focuses on ISO 27001 and does not provide SOC 2 services. Where SOC 2 is the right answer for a client’s pipeline, we say so and the engagement goes to a CPA firm.
No buyer awards a deal to the objectively superior framework; they check the box their procurement checklist names. Comparison on features therefore produces the wrong input to the decision, and the companies that lose months are the ones that build the credential their pipeline never required, then start the other one under deal pressure.
A related error appears on many websites: the phrase “SOC 2 certified”. SOC 2 is an attestation report, not a certification. Buyers’ security teams recognise the distinction, and the phrase signals that the company has not been through the process.
We deliver ISO 27001 and not SOC 2. Secure60 holds ISO 27001:2022 certification, and our governance capability builds and runs the ISMS: risk assessment, controls, evidence, and preparation for Stage 1 and Stage 2 with an accredited certification body, which performs the audit. Where your pipeline points to SOC 2 first, the readiness call says so. Where it points to ISO — the usual answer for companies selling in Australia, APAC and Europe — we take you the whole way.
Is SOC 2 a certification?
No. SOC 2 is an attestation under the AICPA framework: a licensed CPA firm examines your controls and issues a Type I or Type II report. There is no certificate and no register of SOC 2 certified companies. ISO 27001 produces a certificate, issued by an accredited certification body.
Will US buyers accept ISO 27001 instead of SOC 2?
Sometimes. Many US enterprises recognise ISO 27001, and some name SOC 2 specifically in procurement. The buyer is the only reliable source for which applies, and where a live US deal names SOC 2, that requirement governs.
Does Secure60 do SOC 2?
No. We focus on ISO 27001, and Secure60 holds ISO 27001:2022 certification. A SOC 2 report is an engagement for a CPA firm. What we build for ISO overlaps heavily with what a SOC 2 examination covers, so the work carries over.
Can we hold both ISO 27001 and SOC 2?
Yes, and companies selling into both markets often do. The order follows whichever your nearest revenue requires, and the overlap between the two means the second costs less effort than the first.
If SOC 2 might come later, is starting with ISO 27001 a waste?
No. Much of what a SOC 2 examination covers — access control, change management, monitoring, incident response, policies — is work an ISO 27001 ISMS already performs and evidences. Starting with ISO leaves you preparing a report rather than starting over.
