ISO/IEC 42001 certification tells a buyer the vendor runs a management system for AI: policy, roles, risk and impact assessment, lifecycle controls and review. A SOC 2 report tells them how specific controls, mostly security, were designed and, in Type 2, how they operated over a period. A buyer of an agent platform should ask for both.
What does each one require?
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is a certifiable standard for an AI management system. The organisation must understand its context and its role in AI, set an AI policy, assign responsibilities, assess AI risks and the impact of AI systems on people, select controls from a reference set or justify leaving them out, monitor performance, audit itself and improve. An accredited certification body audits it and issues a certificate for a stated scope. Our explainer on what ISO/IEC 42001 is covers the basics.
SOC 2 is an attestation report by an independent auditor on a service organisation's controls, measured against criteria for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy. Security is always in; the rest are chosen. A Type 1 report covers design at a point in time; a Type 2 adds testing of operation over a period. The report describes the system, lists the controls, sets out the tests and records exceptions.
The shape of the evidence differs. A certificate is a pass or fail on a whole management system. A SOC 2 report is a detailed account of controls and test results, including where they failed.
Who asks for which?
Buyers in many markets ask for SOC 2, especially where procurement teams follow US practice. Buyers focused on AI governance, including regulated firms preparing for the EU AI Act and supervisors' expectations, increasingly ask for ISO/IEC 42001. Our answer to whether an agent platform should have a SOC 2 report is yes for any vendor holding customer data, and our answer to whether you need ISO/IEC 42001 to deploy agents is no, though it helps.
What does each show about agents that act?
Agents raise questions that neither assurance was originally designed for. Here is what each answers, and where each goes quiet.
ISO/IEC 42001 answers: Does the vendor know which agents it runs? Has it assessed what can go wrong when they act, and who is affected? Does it control changes to agents across their lifecycle, including model provider changes? Does management review agent performance?
SOC 2 answers: Were the controls the vendor described, such as access to customer environments, change management, logging and incident response, designed and operated as stated? Were there exceptions?
ISO/IEC 42001 goes quiet on: how often each control actually worked, and the exceptions.
SOC 2 goes quiet on: whether the vendor assesses AI risks and impacts at all, unless it chose to include such controls in scope; and the judgement quality of the agents.
Both go quiet on: whether a given agent performs correctly on your cases. That is the subject of agent certification, covered in our guide to what it means to certify an agent.
How should a buyer use both?
| Requirement | Control | Evidence it leaves |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor governs AI | Request the ISO/IEC 42001 certificate and scope | Certificate and scope statement |
| Agent platform in scope | Confirm both the certificate scope and the SOC 2 system description include the agent runtime | Scope review notes |
| Controls operated over time | Request a SOC 2 Type 2 report covering a recent period | Report with tests and exceptions |
| Exceptions understood | Review each exception and the vendor's response | Exception log with your assessment |
| Your side done | Implement the complementary controls the SOC 2 report assigns to customers | Control mapping |
| Model provider covered | Check how both treat the model provider: supplier in one, subservice organisation in the other | Supplier and carve-out review |
| Agent performs on your cases | Test each agent capability on your own cases before granting authority | Per-capability results |
If you can ask for only one, ask according to your main concern. If it is the safety of your data in the vendor's hands, a SOC 2 Type 2 report shows the most. If it is whether the vendor governs AI deliberately, the ISO/IEC 42001 certificate shows that. For agent platforms, both concerns are usually live.
What will your supervisor or auditor ask?
- What assurance did you obtain about the agent platform, and what did each cover?
- Were the agent runtime and tool connections in scope?
- What exceptions appeared in the SOC 2 report, and how did you treat them?
- How do you know the vendor assesses AI risk and impact?
- What evidence did you gather yourselves on the agents' performance?
What does neither cover?
Neither is a regulatory approval. Neither satisfies the EU AI Act or data protection law on its own. Neither replaces your own testing of the agents. And neither says much about information security management as a system in the way ISO/IEC 27001 does; see ISO/IEC 27001 vs SOC 2 for agent platforms and ISO/IEC 42001 vs ISO/IEC 27001 for those comparisons.
This is an explanation of the rules, not legal advice; confirm how they apply to you with counsel.
Where Pryme fits
Assurance about the vendor is a starting point. Pryme adds evidence about the agent: Attest replays the agent against real cases from the customer's operation, scores every answer against a floor, and sets depth from the result. That evidence is per customer and lapses after 90 days, which neither a certificate nor a report is designed to do.
Questions people ask
Does a SOC 2 report ever cover AI risks?
It can, if the vendor includes AI-related controls in its system description and the auditor tests them. Read the control list rather than assuming.
Is an ISO/IEC 42001 certificate less detailed than a SOC 2 report?
It is less detailed about individual control tests, but broader about governance. The certificate covers whether a full management system works; the report details specific controls.
How recent should a SOC 2 report be?
Recent enough that its period ends close to your review. If there is a gap, ask the vendor for a bridge letter confirming no material changes since.