CAIQ vs SIG Questionnaire Requirements by Industry

CAIQ vs SIG Questionnaire Requirements by Industry ⟦c1⟧. Understanding these industry-specific patterns gives organizations a practical basis for choosing, combining, or scoping the two questionnaires ⟦c3⟧.

Security questionnaire limitations across industries

Vendor risk assessment exists because every third party with access to a company's systems or data is a potential entry point for a breach, and the numbers back that up: a Cloud Security Alliance report found that 58% of cloud breaches trace back to third parties, contractors, and partners⟦c4⟧. Protecting customer data ranks as the top concern for 43% of organizations across industries, regardless of sector⟦c5⟧. Given that, it would be convenient if one questionnaire could handle every vendor relationship. It can't handle every vendor relationship, given how varied those relationships are.

Organizations spent years building custom questionnaires for every vendor engagement, and the results were what you'd expect: inconsistent answers, no basis for comparison across vendors, and vendor fatigue on the other side of the table from filling out a different form every time.

That tension deserves attention. A questionnaire built to standardize cloud transparency and a questionnaire built to satisfy regulatory depth are not interchangeable, and treating them as such is how gaps in a vendor risk program get created. This piece maps which industries reach for which tool, and why, so that practitioners have an actual basis for choosing, scoping, or combining the two rather than defaulting to whichever one showed up first in a template folder⟦c7⟧. Standardized tools (SIG and CAIQ) emerged as the dominant solutions, each from a different community with different assumptions ⟦c6⟧.

Origins of each questionnaire and the problem each was designed to solve

CAIQ came out of the Cloud Security Alliance, founded in 2008 with a mission specific to cloud computing best practices⟦c8⟧. The STAR Registry held more than 4,000 assessments as of mid-2025⟦c12⟧. CAIQ is a structured self-attestation ⟦c2⟧. It is not a certification, and nobody outside the vendor is verifying the answers at the base tier⟦c13⟧.

SIG has a different lineage. Shared Assessments, the organization behind it, was founded in 2005 and built by member organizations from financial services, healthcare, and insurance, industries that were dealing with regulatory pressure long before cloud computing became the dominant delivery model⟦c14⟧. SIG was never cloud-specific. It was built for any vendor relationship at all, covering physical security, human resources practices, business continuity, and regulatory compliance right alongside the technical controls⟦c15⟧. The questionnaire gets updated annually by a member committee to track new regulations, and it currently maps to more than 35 regulatory frameworks⟦c16⟧. More than 15,000 people worldwide use it⟦c17⟧.

Reduced to one line: CAIQ is optimized for a vendor to answer once and satisfy everyone asking ⟦c2⟧. SIG is optimized for a buyer to ask everything that matters for a specific vendor at a specific risk tier⟦c18⟧. Nearly every industry-specific pattern that follows traces back to that one distinction. Built to document security controls across IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS offerings ⟦c9⟧. Questions map directly to the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM), 197 control objectives across 17 domains (Nemko Digital, Bitsight, panorays.com, Cloud Security Alliance) ⟦c10⟧.

Structure of the two questionnaires: question counts, tiers, and scope

CAIQ v4.1, released January 27, 2026, runs 283 questions aligned to 207 controls spread across 17 domains⟦c19⟧. There's also a shorter CAIQ-Lite, roughly 70 questions, covering the same control domains at lower resolution, built for faster engagement or lower-risk cloud vendors⟦c20⟧. Some sources cite 261 questions in CAIQ, a figure that appears to reflect an earlier version of the questionnaire, and the 283 count from v4.1 is the current one⟦c21⟧.

SIG Lite runs 128 questions, meant as a high-level overview and a starting point for basic due diligence⟦c23⟧. SIG Detail runs 1,936 questions, an exhaustive instrument reserved for the highest-risk vendor relationships⟦c25⟧.

SIG spans 21 risk control areas against CAIQ's 17 domains, though the raw domain count tells you less than what sits inside each one⟦c28⟧. Cost draws its own dividing line: CAIQ is a free download, while SIG requires a Shared Assessments membership, with a standalone license running $7,000 a year⟦c29⟧. That asymmetry shapes who can afford to be asked the harder questionnaire and who bears the cost of proving compliance. It shapes who can afford to be asked the harder questionnaire and who bears the cost of proving compliance. SIG 2025 edition tiers (released January 2025) ⟦c22⟧. SIG Core: 627 questions, in-depth vendor assessment across all risk control areas (Compyl) ⟦c24⟧. Underlying SIG Content Library: 1,855 risk control questions; practitioners can scope up or down from the standard tiers (Shared Assessments, panorays.com) ⟦c26⟧. Earlier community figures (Panorays) reference ~126 questions for Lite and ~855 for Core (these are prior-edition counts), and the 2025 edition figures above supersede them (panorays.com, workstreet.com) ⟦c27⟧.

Coverage and gaps of each questionnaire

CAIQ goes deeper than SIG in a handful of specific places⟦c30⟧. Multi-tenancy and logical isolation get detailed treatment: how a provider prevents data commingling between tenants sharing the same infrastructure. The shared responsibility model, the division of security duties between cloud provider and customer, gets addressed explicitly, which matters because that division is often the single biggest source of confusion in a cloud vendor relationship. Data sovereignty and residency questions dig into where data physically sits and how it crosses borders. API security, meanwhile, gets granular treatment on authentication, rate limiting, and access controls, something SIG folds into a broader application security bucket without the same specificity⟦c31⟧.

SIG's depth runs in the opposite direction⟦c33⟧. Regulatory compliance gets asked about directly in SIG, with named questions tied to HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, and SOX, while CAIQ only touches compliance as it relates to cloud operations⟦c37⟧. Endpoint device security has its own dedicated domain in SIG covering mobile device management and BYOD policy, something CAIQ barely addresses⟦c38⟧. Business continuity and disaster recovery gets comprehensive treatment in SIG, where CAIQ narrows the same topic to cloud resilience specifically⟦c39⟧.

CAIQ's format carries a real limitation: it runs on yes/no answers, which strips out nuance. It runs on yes/no answers, which strips out nuance, and because it's self-assessed, the rigor behind any given answer varies by vendor, with no external verification built into the base tier⟦c40⟧. SIG's 19 assessed risk areas, which include cloud hosting, compliance management, cybersecurity incident management, endpoint security, enterprise risk management, ESG, and human resources security, cover ground that simply doesn't exist inside CAIQ's frame⟦c41⟧. STAR Registry integration: published responses allow buyers to review without sending a questionnaire (a workflow advantage with no SIG equivalent) ⟦c32⟧. Physical security: facility access controls, surveillance, environmental protections, visitor management. CAIQ coverage is limited ⟦c34⟧. Human resources security: full HR lifecycle, background checks, awareness training, termination procedures ⟦c15⟧. CAIQ addresses this lightly ⟦c35⟧. Enterprise risk management: vendor governance structure, risk appetite, overall risk framework. CAIQ focuses on cloud-specific risks ⟦c36⟧.

Financial services' use of SIG under bank and insurer regulation, and DORA's additions

Banks and insurers don't choose SIG out of preference ⟦c2⟧. They choose it because federal banking regulators leave them little choice. Interagency guidance from the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC, issued in 2023, requires financial institutions to assess third-party control environments and maintain ongoing oversight of those relationships, and a yes/no cloud questionnaire cannot satisfy that mandate on its own⟦c42⟧. SIG's regulatory mapping, spanning more than 35 frameworks with cross-references to NIST, ISO, GDPR, and CCPA built into the Content Library, was purpose-built for exactly this environment⟦c43⟧.

DORA requires financial entities to assess and monitor ICT third-party risk on an ongoing basis⟦c45⟧. Financial institutions relying on any of those providers now need to demonstrate they've assessed the concentration risk that dependency creates. SIG's 2025 edition responded directly: control J.11 asks whether an organization has outsourced its incident reporting responsibilities to a third-party service provider, directly addressing DORA Article 18's requirement that financial entities report major ICT-related incidents to the relevant competent authority⟦c47⟧.

CAIQ still has a role here, but a bounded one. It can support DORA-related cloud assessments when it's folded into a documented, repeatable process, though it doesn't substitute for the regulatory breadth SIG was built to provide⟦c48⟧. If you're selling into a bank, an insurer, or a payment processor, expect SIG ⟦c2⟧. It's the standard outbound instrument in that sector⟦c49⟧. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies follow the identical pattern, both cited as industries where SIG is the default choice for any high-risk vendor handling personal data or operating inside a regulated environment⟦c50⟧. DORA (effective January 17, 2025) adds EU-specific weight ⟦c44⟧. In November 2025, the ESAs published their first list of 19 designated Critical ICT Third-Party Providers (CTPPs): Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and Deutsche Telekom among them (these providers are now subject to direct EU oversight including annual risk assessments, on-site inspections, and mandatory reporting) (Nemko Digital, panorays.com) ⟦c46⟧.

HIPAA obligations and the relevance of SIG's non-cloud coverage for covered entities

HIPAA obligates covered entities and business associates to put safeguards around how third-party partners handle protected health information, and that obligation attaches to any vendor with access to that data, cloud-hosted or not⟦c51⟧. That's the entire fit driver for SIG in healthcare ⟦c2⟧. A hospital system or health insurer running one assessment program might need to evaluate an electronic health record vendor, a managed service provider, a connected medical device supplier, and a billing company all at once, and a cloud-only instrument simply cannot serve all four of those relationships equally well⟦c51⟧.

Shared Assessments built its membership base to include HIPAA-regulated entities from early on, and SIG was explicitly designed to grow into that population⟦c52⟧. The pressure has only intensified since: healthcare organizations are dealing with a steady stream of data breaches and shifting HIPAA interpretations, with regulators paying closer attention to third-party service providers, cloud platforms, and the MSPs managing electronic health records or connected devices⟦c53⟧.

CAIQ still earns a place in the healthcare stack, just a narrower one. Cloud-hosted EHR platforms or health data systems can reasonably be assessed with CAIQ for the cloud-specific layer, things like data residency, multi-tenancy, and API security around HL7/FHIR endpoints, but CAIQ on its own does not satisfy the full obligation a covered entity carries for vendor risk⟦c54⟧. The practical pattern that tends to hold up: CAIQ for the cloud vendors, SIG Lite or SIG Core for the broader vendor population, and SIG Core specifically for any high-risk business associate with significant access to protected health information⟦c55⟧.

Technology companies and SaaS vendors: where CAIQ is the natural starting point

Tech-forward and cloud-native buyers gravitate toward CAIQ for a reason that goes beyond convenience: they share the same shared-responsibility mental model as the vendors they're assessing, so the questionnaire's framing already matches how both sides think about the relationship⟦c56⟧. The STAR Registry gives that relationship a practical shortcut too ⟦c11⟧. A buyer can check whether a SaaS vendor has already published a completed CAIQ and skip the questionnaire exchange entirely⟦c57⟧.

Consider a CISO at an event planning company, whose main concern is the SaaS tools running day-to-day operations, with no significant privacy obligations and no regulated data in play ⟦c58⟧. For that buyer, CAIQ's scope fits the actual risk, and its yes/no format moves fast without demanding more than the situation calls for⟦c58⟧. That's a fairly common trajectory for SaaS companies generally: CAIQ appears first, and SIG only enters the picture once the vendor moves upmarket into regulated-industry customers, banks, hospitals, insurers, who send SIG outbound as their standard intake form⟦c59⟧. CAIQ's free availability and its public registry lower the barrier further for smaller or earlier-stage cloud vendors who have no way to absorb a $7,000-a-year license fee⟦c60⟧.

The CAIQ-first approach runs into real limits once a tech buyer's vendor population stops being purely cloud-based ⟦c61⟧. Facilities management, staffing agencies, logistics providers, none of them fit CAIQ's cloud framing, and forcing them through it produces genuine assessment gaps rather than efficient screening⟦c61⟧.

When both questionnaires belong in the same assessment program

Industry sets the baseline questionnaire. Vendor risk tier and vendor type determine what gets added on top of that baseline. That's the operating logic behind most mature third-party risk programs, and it's why the "CAIQ versus SIG" framing misses the point for anyone running an actual assessment portfolio rather than picking a single form ⟦c2⟧.

Practitioner guidance from ShieldRisk lays out recommended pairings⟦c62⟧. A critical vendor in a regulated sector with a broad risk surface gets SIG Core paired with CAIQ⟦c63⟧. A high-tier SaaS vendor gets SIG Lite paired with CAIQ⟦c64⟧. The logic behind both pairings is the same: SIG Core picks up the non-cloud risk domains CAIQ was never built to cover, physical security, HR, enterprise risk, regulatory compliance, while CAIQ picks up the cloud-specific depth that SIG only treats at a surface level, multi-tenancy, shared responsibility, granular API controls⟦c65⟧.

Scoping discipline is what keeps this workable rather than exhausting. SIG's tiered structure, Lite at 128 questions, Core at 627, Detail at 1,936, plus the Content Library's 1,855 underlying questions, gives a practitioner room to right-size the SIG component instead of defaulting to Detail for every vendor regardless of actual risk⟦c66⟧. CAIQ-Lite, at roughly 70 questions, plays the same role on the cloud side, appropriate for initial screening or for periodic reassessment of lower-risk cloud vendors⟦c67⟧. Sending SIG Detail's 1,936 questions to a low-risk SaaS vendor produces vendor fatigue with no proportionate reduction in risk, and sending only CAIQ to a critical on-premises vendor holding protected health information leaves real gaps sitting unexamined⟦c68⟧.

Regulatory mapping: how each framework connects to the compliance obligations that drive industry choices

SIG's regulatory breadth is, in the end, its whole reason for existing. It maps to more than 35 regulatory frameworks, and the Content Library carries explicit cross-references to NIST, ISO, GDPR, and CCPA, with individual questions tied back to the specific standard controls they're meant to satisfy⟦c69⟧. The annual update cycle ensures new regulations, including DORA and state privacy laws, are incorporated, and the 2025 edition's explicit DORA control, J.11, illustrates this responsiveness⟦c70⟧.

CAIQ's regulatory scope stays narrower by design. That narrowness is a deliberate design choice. It's the same design discipline that makes CAIQ fast to complete, free to access, and reusable across every buyer checking the STAR Registry instead of sending a fresh form ⟦c57⟧. The choice between the two questionnaires, in the end, comes down to which kind of gap an organization can least afford: a cloud vendor whose isolation controls go unexamined, or a regulated vendor relationship whose HR practices, physical facilities, and compliance posture never come up at all ⟦c74⟧. ESG domain and Nth-Party Management domain added in recent editions reflect the broadening definition of third-party risk ⟦c71⟧. CAIQ's regulatory scope is intentionally narrower: maps to the CCM, which connects to SOC 2, ISO 27001, and cloud-relevant compliance requirements (Compyl) ⟦c72⟧.