A SOC 3 is the report most teams have heard of and few can describe. It is sometimes treated as a lighter SOC 2, sometimes as a marketing badge, and sometimes as something buyers ask for by mistake when they mean the SOC 2. None of those is quite right.
This article covers what a SOC 3 is, what it contains, and what it leaves out on purpose. It then sets out where a SOC 3 earns its place, where it does not replace a SOC 2, and how to decide whether to get one.
A general use report on the same criteria
A SOC 3 reports on the same subject as a SOC 2: controls at a service organization relevant to security and, if included, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy. It uses the same AICPA trust services criteria. It is issued by a CPA firm.
The difference is who may read it. A SOC 2 is a restricted-use report. It is intended for specified parties who have enough understanding of the system, the criteria, and the nature of the testing to interpret the detail. A SOC 3 is a general use report. Anyone can read it, and you can publish it without an NDA.
That one difference drives everything else. Because a SOC 3 may reach readers with no context, it leaves out the material that only makes sense with context.
In practice a SOC 3 is usually produced alongside a SOC 2, from the same examination work, covering the same system and the same period. Your auditor can tell you how they structure it and what it adds to the engagement.
What it contains, and what it leaves out
A SOC 3 is short. It typically contains:
The auditor's report, with the opinion on whether controls were effective to provide reasonable assurance that your service commitments and system requirements were achieved, based on the applicable criteria.
Management's assertion, the signed statement by your management that the opinion addresses.
A brief description of the system's boundaries and the principal service commitments and system requirements.
It leaves out the parts of a SOC 2 that a security reviewer spends most time on:
The full system description, including the detail of infrastructure, software, people, procedures, and data.
The list of controls.
The auditor's tests of each control.
The results of those tests, including any exceptions.
That last omission is the important one. A buyer's reviewer reading a SOC 2 looks at the exceptions, the complementary user entity controls, and how subservice organizations are handled. A SOC 3 does not show that level of detail. It tells the reader that an auditor reached an opinion. It does not let them form their own view of how close the result was.
Where a SOC 3 earns its place
A SOC 3 is useful in situations where a full SOC 2 is unnecessary, or where releasing one would be out of proportion to the request.
Early in a sales cycle. A prospect wants to know you have been audited before they invest time in a security review. A SOC 3 answers that without an NDA, a form, or a wait.
Smaller or lower-risk customers. Some customers only need confirmation that an independent examination happened and the opinion was unqualified. They do not have a team that will read test results.
Public pages. A SOC 3 can sit on your security page or Trust Center for anyone to download. What else belongs there is covered in what to put on a Trust Center.
Reducing NDA traffic. If many requests for your SOC 2 come from people who only need the headline, a public SOC 3 removes some of them from the queue. The SOC 2 stays behind an agreement for those who need the detail, as described in gating documents behind an NDA.
Where it does not replace a SOC 2
Most enterprise security and vendor risk teams want the SOC 2 itself. A SOC 3 does not give them what their process requires.
They need the exceptions. A reviewer deciding whether an exception matters to their use of your service needs to see it.
They need the complementary user entity controls. These tell the customer what they must do for your controls to work. The customer's own auditors may ask whether they are in place.
They need the subservice organization detail. Under the carve-out method, the customer may need to review your providers' reports as well.
They need to map controls to their questionnaire. Many reviewers use the SOC 2 control list to answer their internal assessment. A SOC 3 has no control list to map.
A SOC 3 also does not substitute for a SOC 1. If a customer's financial auditor needs assurance over transaction processing, the report they need is covered in SOC 2 vs SOC 1.
So treat a SOC 3 as a first answer, not a final one. Expect serious buyers to follow it with a request for the SOC 2.
Should you get one
A SOC 3 is worth considering when most of these are true:
You already have, or are about to complete, a SOC 2 Type II.
Your opinion is unqualified, or you expect it to be.
A meaningful share of your report requests come from prospects early in a sales cycle, or from customers who never read beyond the opinion.
You want something on your public security page that is stronger than a logo or a sentence saying you have been audited.
It is less useful when:
Almost all your customers are enterprises that will request the SOC 2 regardless.
You have recurring exceptions you would rather explain in context, inside a SOC 2, with management's response alongside.
You are still on a Type I. Ask your auditor what form of general use report, if any, they would issue for a point-in-time examination.
Publishing it well
If you do publish a SOC 3, a few habits keep it doing its job.
Keep it current. A SOC 3 covers a specific period. Replace it when the next report is issued, and say on the page which period it covers.
Say what is available on request. Next to the SOC 3, state that the SOC 2 is available under NDA, and how to ask for it. That routes serious reviewers to the right document.
Do not describe it as a certification. A SOC 3 is an attestation report. Calling it a certificate invites a correction from the first reviewer who reads it carefully.
Use the actual document. Linking to the report itself is more credible than a badge, because the reader can see the auditor, the period, and the opinion.
How TrustLynce helps
The TrustLynce Trust Center can publish a SOC 3 openly and keep the SOC 2 behind an NDA, with an access log of who requested and viewed each document. That keeps the public summary and the detailed report in one place, each with the access rules it needs.