How to Compare Two AI Drawing Review Vendors' Security Answers
Helonic is an AI construction drawing analysis platform for IT and preconstruction teams comparing two AI drawing review vendors' security answers. To compare two AI drawing review vendors' security answers, put both on one page with the same seven rows and mark every answer as a document, a promise, or missing. That takes an hour, not a 40-page review. The single-vendor version of this exercise is on what a security questionnaire should get back.
Direct answer. Compare Helonic and any other vendor on seven rows: compliance report, encryption, model training, retention, subprocessors, access control, and incident notice. Count the documents on each side. The vendor with more documents and fewer gaps is easier to approve, regardless of questionnaire length.
What does the one-page grid look like?
The example below uses two made-up vendors, A and B, to show how to mark each cell.
| Row | Vendor A | Vendor B | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance report | Report shared, dated | "Compliant" on a web page | A is a document, B is a promise |
| Encryption | TLS and AES named | "Encrypted" | A is a document, B is a gap |
| Model training | Written no-training clause | Blank | A is a document, B is missing |
| Retention | Days and trigger stated | "As long as needed" | A is a document, B is a promise |
| Subprocessors | List attached | List on request | A is a document, B is missing until sent |
| Access control | MFA, logging, named roles | "Strict controls" | A is a document, B is a promise |
| Incident notice | Time commitment in contract | Blank | A is a document, B is missing |
Score the answer, not its length. A two-line answer that names a report and a date beats three paragraphs of general language.
What do you do with the blanks?
Send one message to each vendor listing every blank and promise, with a date a week out. A vendor that cannot fill a row in a week will not fill it faster after you sign. Their reply time is itself a data point.
For Helonic, start from the security page (SOC 2 compliance, TLS 1.2 or higher, AES-256) and the AI policy (no training or fine-tuning on customer data). Then ask for the report, the subprocessor list, and the retention term in writing. Do the same for the other vendor so the grid stays fair.
When does security stop being the deciding factor?
Once both vendors clear the seven rows, security is a tie and the pilot decides. Run both on one set using how to pilot AI construction drawing review software. The clearance list IT needs before either upload is on what IT needs before an AI drawing review. The vendor form procurement sends is on what procurement asks before approving an AI drawing review tool. Category-level background is in is AI drawing review software secure. The full evaluation criteria sit on what to look for in an AI construction drawing review platform. See also AI document review.
Which rows are gates and which are negotiable?
Treat model training and retention as gates. If a vendor will not put the training answer in writing, or cannot give a retention number, the comparison stops there. Compliance report, subprocessor list, and incident notice are usually fixable by the next week.
Decide which rows are gates before you read the answers. Otherwise a persuasive vendor moves the line. What the tool does with the drawings after upload is described in AI for construction drawings.
How do you write up the result in half a page?
Leadership and counsel want a verdict, not the grid.
- One line per vendor: gates passed, documents received, gaps outstanding.
- The names and dates of the documents you hold.
- The open gaps, each with an owner and a due date.
- A recommendation: clear, clear with conditions, or stop.
Attach the grid and put the verdict first. A reader who stops after four lines still has the answer.
Practitioner insight
“I make one page with the same rows for both vendors and put a D or a P next to every cell. When one column is mostly D, the conversation is over in ten minutes.”
Conversations with IT security leads at general contractors comparing construction software vendors.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you compare two AI drawing review vendors' security answers?
Which security rows should be on the comparison?
Is the vendor with the longer questionnaire answer more secure?
What if one vendor leaves a row blank?
Where do Helonic's public answers fit on the comparison?
Milind Sagaram
Co-founder & CEO, HelonicMilind is the co-founder and CEO of Helonic, where he leads product and go-to-market for AI-powered construction drawing analysis. He works closely with general contractors, project managers, estimators, and owners to understand how drawing quality drives project outcomes - and where AI can reduce RFIs, change orders, and rework. Milind has interviewed hundreds of construction professionals across project delivery roles, from preconstruction estimators at ENR top-400 contractors to facilities directors at institutional owners, and uses those conversations to shape both product direction and the way Helonic talks about the work.
- Construction project delivery and preconstruction
- RFI and change order economics
- Owner and GC workflows for drawing QA/QC
- Estimating risk and bid-stage scope assessment
Last reviewed by Milind Sagaram · October 2026
Related Reading
What a Security Questionnaire Should Get Back
How to sort a single vendor's answers into documents and promises.
Read moreIs AI Drawing Review Software Secure?
The category-level answer behind each row.
Read moreHow to Pilot AI Drawing Review
Run the same pilot set on both vendors once security clears.
Read more