TL;DR — If your near-term mandate is stability for a large VM estate, VMware remains a pragmatic choice. If your priorities are lower 3-year TCO, faster change, and evidence-driven compliance under PDPL, NCA ECC, and (where relevant) SAMA, Red Hat OpenShift with OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt) is usually the better strategic platform. Run a 90-day pilot, then migrate in waves (keep → move → modernize). This post compares VMware vs OpenShift for KSA enterprises and outlines a pragmatic VMware to OpenShift migration path that supports PDPL/NCA/SAMA compliance.

Vmware vs Openshift in One View (Ksa 2025)

Who Should Choose Vmware Today

• You have mission-critical legacy VMs with specialized drivers/appliances and limited change windows.
• Your team is optimized for vSphere workflows and you need lowest near-term migration risk.
• You plan a 1–2 year stabilization before modernization, and current budgets can absorb higher licensing/support.
• You need predictable VM performance and established HA/DR patterns without changing operating models immediately.
• Compliance focus is met via existing process/tooling, and audit evidence is already standardized around vSphere.

Who Should Choose Openshift Virtualization Today

• You want one platform for VMs now and containers tomorrow, avoiding parallel toolchains and silos.
• You need automation at scale (GitOps, pipelines, Operators) to reduce toil and speed time-to-change.
• You’re targeting 3-year TCO reduction (license rationalization, better bin-packing, infra consolidation).
• You require portability across data centers and cloud, with policy-as-code for PDPL/NCA/SAMA evidence.
• You’re ready to pilot → scale: start with non-prod or low-risk workloads, then migrate in waves.

What is VMware?

VMware is a virtualization platform centered on ESXi (the hypervisor) and vCenter (management). It abstracts physical servers into virtual machines (VMs) so multiple OS/application stacks can run on the same hardware.
Why enterprises like it: mature ecosystem, robust HA/DR features, proven admin workflows, and a large talent pool.
Trade-offs today: licensing exposure, limited built-in container capabilities, and a slower path to cloud-native automation compared to Kubernetes-first platforms.

What is OpenShift (and OpenShift Virtualization)?

Red Hat OpenShift is a Kubernetes platform for building and operating applications. With OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt), it runs VMs alongside containers on the same clusters so infra teams can operate one platform while app teams modernize at their pace.
Why enterprises like it: GitOps automation, Operators, policy-as-code, integrated registry/CI/CD, and consistent security controls across on-prem and cloud.
Trade-offs: requires Kubernetes skills and an operating-model shift (clusters, GitOps, SRE), and careful performance planning for VM-heavy estates.

Why This Decision Matters in KSA (PDPL • NCA ECC • SAMA)

Choosing between VMware vs OpenShift isn’t only a technology call it’s a governance decision with direct implications for data residency, auditability, vendor risk, and long-term cost. For Saudi enterprises, the platform you standardize on must make it easier (not harder) to demonstrate compliance with PDPL, NCA ECC, and where relevant SAMA supervisory expectations. The winning platform is the one that bakes controls into day-to-day operations so evidence is generated automatically, not assembled manually the night before an audit.

Data Residency, Encryption, RBAC/SSO, Logging/SIEM, DR Drills

Data Residency

• Keep personally identifiable information (PII) within KSA unless you have explicit legal grounds and safeguards.
• VMware: Clear zoning with clusters and storage policies; rely on external processes to prevent cross-border replication.
• OpenShift: Namespaces, network policies, and placement rules let you pin workloads and data to KSA zones; policy as code can block non-compliant placements by default.

Encryption 

• Use platform-level defaults and centralized key management.
• VMware: vSAN encryption, VM encryption, and TLS across management; often integrates with external KMS/HSM.
• OpenShift: Cluster-wide TLS, etcd encryption, per-namespace secrets; integrates with KMS/HSM/CMK for keys and supports envelope encryption.

RBAC/SSO

• Map roles to business functions, not people; enforce MFA and SSO.
• VMware: Mature role sets in vCenter; SSO with enterprise IdPs; strong for infra teams.
• OpenShift: Kubernetes RBAC + OpenShift groups/roles; SSO/OIDC integration for workforce identity; fine-grained, namespace-scoped access for app, platform, and SecOps teams.

Logging/SIEM 

• Centralize logs; protect integrity; ensure retention meets policy.
• VMware: vCenter/ESXi logs shipped to SIEM; good infra visibility, limited app-level context.
• OpenShift: Cluster logging operators, audit logs, and app logs routed to your SIEM/ELK; labels/annotations preserve workload context for faster investigations.

DR Drills

• Regulators expect tested recovery, not just plans on paper.
• VMware: Well-known HA/DR runbooks (SRM, vMotion, replicas); drill evidence typically pulled from separate tools.
• OpenShift: Multi-zone clusters, GitOps-based restore, app-level DR; pipelines can automate DR tests and capture artifacts (timings, pass/fail, screenshots) for repeatable evidence.

What Good Looks Like (Checklist)

• Residency guardrails enforced in code (placement, egress).
• Keys managed via KMS/HSM with rotation logs.
• SSO + MFA, role reviews every quarter.
• Immutable audit logs streaming to SIEM with alerts.
• Quarterly DR drills with measured RPO/RTO and signed approvals.

Evidence Packs & Audit Readiness: Operational Differences

Audits in KSA reward repeatability and traceability. The practical gap between VMware vs OpenShift is how easily your operating model produces evidence as a by-product of normal work.

1) Policy as Code → Continuous Compliance

• VMware: Controls often live in runbooks and admin practice; evidence is screenshots, exports, and tickets.
• OpenShift: Admission controls, OPA/Gatekeeper, and GitOps policies block non-compliant changes up front; every change has a git commit and pipeline run your evidence trail.

2) Change Management & Approvals

• VMware: ITSM tickets + vCenter tasks; solid infra traceability, limited application lineage.
• OpenShift: Pull requests become the approval workflow; CI/CD logs show who changed what, when, and why mapped to CAB requirements with links to artifacts.

3) Segregation of Duties (SoD)

• VMware: Separation via vCenter roles and folder/datastore boundaries; strong for infra, manual for app teams.
• OpenShift: Namespace-level RBAC splits platform, app, and security duties; easy to demonstrate least privilege per team.

4) Evidence Pack Assembly

• VMware: Collect vCenter exports, SRM plans, backup job logs, and ITSM reports; workable but manual.
• OpenShift: Generate a repeatable evidence bundle from pipelines (YAML policies, RBAC manifests, SBOMs, image scan reports, DR drill timings, SIEM alerts). One command can re-create the full pack for PDPL/NCA/SAMA reviews.

5) Portability & Vendor Risk

• VMware: Deep feature set; risk centers on licensing and ecosystem dependency.
• OpenShift: Runs on diverse infrastructures (on-prem/cloud); policy and pipelines move with you, reducing lock-in and aiding regulator comfort with exit options.

Audit-Ready Starter Pack (What to Prepare Now)

• Residency map: systems of record, data flows, and KSA boundaries.
• RBAC manifest: role matrix for infra/app/SecOps with quarterly attestations.
• Encryption dossier: KMS/HSM configs, key rotations, and proof of at-rest/in-transit coverage.
• Logging trail: SIEM dashboards, alert runbooks, retention policy proof.
• DR evidence: last two drill reports with RPO/RTO results, sign-offs, and remediation actions.
• Change lineage: sample PRs/tickets linking policy changes to production outcomes.

Both platforms can meet the bar, but OpenShift’s GitOps + policy-as-code approach enables continuous compliance and automatic evidence, while VMware offers proven stability with more process-centric evidence gathering. Your choice should reflect not only workload fit and cost, but the governance operating model you want to run for the next 3–5 years.

Evaluation Framework for CIOs (Business-First)

Use this simple, board-ready framework to compare VMware vs OpenShift on outcomes that matter: cost, speed, risk, and governance. Keep each lens measurable so you can defend the decision under PDPL/NCA/SAMA scrutiny.

Total Cost of Ownership (License, Infra, Ops, Skills)

What to model (3-year view):

• Licenses & Support: Hypervisor/platform subs, add-ons (backup, DR, security), support tiers.
• Infrastructure: Compute, storage, network, accelerators, backup media, data center/colocation, cloud usage.
• Operations: Headcount, 24×7 support, patching, upgrades, monitoring, backup/restore, DR drills.
• Skills & Enablement: Training, certification, partner services, pilot-to-scale migration waves.

Decision Signals

• If license spend dominates and growth is steady → OpenShift may improve scale economics by consolidating VMs + containers on one platform.
• If infra is already optimized and migration risk is high → VMware may be cheaper in the near term despite licenses.

Quick Worksheet

• Cost per VM / per vCPU
• Node density (VMs per host / per core)
• % workloads suitable for containerization in 12–24 months
• Skills ramp (weeks) and backfill costs

Agility & Time-to-Change (Automation, GitOps, Day-2 Ops)

What to measure

• Lead time for change: PR → prod for platform and app changes.
• Frequency of change: safe deploys per week.
• Toil reduction: % tasks automated (provision, patch, scale, DR test).
• Day-2 reliability: time to patch/upgrade platform without outage.

How Platforms Differ

• VMware: Strong for VM lifecycle; automation via vRealize/VMware Aria and scripts; app agility depends on external CI/CD.
• OpenShift: GitOps-first (pipelines, Operators); infra and app changes flow through the same pipelines, shrinking time-to-change and easing modernization.

Decision Signals

• If your roadmap needs frequent releases and standardized change workflows across teams, OpenShift usually accelerates agility.
• If you need stable, infrequent change on complex legacy VMs, VMware’s familiar tooling is pragmatic.

Risk & Resilience (Vendor Risk, DR/RPO/RTO)

What to Measure

• Vendor concentration: exposure to price/contract changes and exit options.
• Resilience KPIs: RPO/RTO targets, failover success rate, and last tested DR drill outcomes.
• Performance risk: VM density, noisy-neighbor controls, storage/network headroom.
• Supply chain security: image/OVA provenance, signing, SBOMs.

How Platforms Differ

• VMware: Proven HA/DR (vMotion/SRM), broad skills pool; vendor exposure is the main strategic risk.
• OpenShift: Multi-zone clustering, application-level DR, policy-guarded rollouts; requires skills uplift and careful sizing for VM-heavy estates.

Decision Signals

• If board pressure is high on vendor lock-in and price volatility, OpenShift offers more portability options.
• If your biggest risk is operational failure during a cutover, keep VMware for critical waves and migrate gradually.

Governance & Compliance (Policy, Attestation, Traceability)

What to Evidence (PDPL • NCA ECC • SAMA)

• Residency & access: workload placement, data egress controls, least-privilege RBAC/SSO with MFA.
• Encryption: at rest/in transit with KMS/HSM; key rotation logs.
• Logging & forensics: immutable audit trails streaming to SIEM; retention & integrity.
• Change control: approvals, rollbacks, and artifact lineage tied to production outcomes.
• DR assurance: tested drills with signed RPO/RTO results.

How Platforms Differ

• VMware: Compliance anchored in processes and ITSM; evidence assembled from vCenter, SRM, backup tools, and ticketing.
• OpenShift: Policy-as-code + GitOps creates continuous compliance; admission controls block non-compliant changes, and pipelines output ready-made evidence packs.

VMware vs OpenShift — Side-by-Side Comparison (2025)

Executive view tailored for KSA infra leaders comparing VMware vs OpenShift across cost, agility, risk, and governance. Scores: 1–5 (higher = stronger). Notes reflect 2025 enterprise realities without vendor-specific version minutiae.

Dimension	VMware (vSphere/ESXi Stack)	OpenShift Virtualization (OpenShift + KubeVirt)
Primary Value Prop	Mature, feature-rich VM platform with predictable HA/DR and deep vSphere tooling.	Unified platform to run VMs + containers with GitOps, policy-as-code, and app-centric ops.
3-Year TCO (License + Infra + Ops)	Medium–High: License/subscription exposure; strong infra efficiency; ops efficiency depends on automation add-ons.	Medium: Platform subs + support; offsets via consolidation (VMs+containers), bin-packing, and CI/CD automation.
Licensing & Renewals	Hypervisor/management + optional DR/automation SKUs; sensitive to core/socket growth and renewal cycles.	Subscription per core/node; includes Kubernetes platform features; fewer add-on SKUs for CI/CD/policy.
Architecture	ESXi hypervisor, vCenter management; VM-centric with optional containers via add-ons/integrations.	Kubernetes platform (OpenShift) with KubeVirt to host VMs; first-class containers + VMs on same clusters.
Workload Fit	Traditional/legacy VMs, commercial off-the-shelf apps, appliances needing stable drivers.	Mixed estates: legacy VMs now, microservices/containers next; strong path for modernization.
Automation Model	vCenter + scripting + VMware Aria/vRealize; change managed via ITSM + runbooks.	GitOps-first (Pipelines/Operators), infra and app changes as code; PR-based approvals.
Day-2 Operations	Mature patch/upgrade processes; change windows often required; excellent admin UX.	Rolling upgrades, canaries, policy-guarded changes; app + platform day-2 standardized through pipelines.
Performance & Density	Predictable VM performance; strong NUMA/CPU/mem controls; mature storage/network stacks.	Competitive with proper tuning; VM density impacted by container stack overhead; great bin-packing for containers.
HA/DR Options	vMotion/HA/SRM patterns are battle-tested; rich ecosystem for backup/replication.	Multi-zone clusters, app-level DR, GitOps restore; integrates with storage/backup; DR drills can be automated.
Security Hardening	Mature baselines; VM encryption, vSAN encryption, TLS for mgmt; integrates with external KMS/HSM.	Cluster TLS, etcd encryption, image signing/SCAs, KMS/HSM/CMK; policy engines (OPA/Gatekeeper) enforce controls.
RBAC/SSO	vCenter roles; SSO with enterprise IdPs; strong for infra admins.	Namespace-scoped RBAC, OIDC/SSO; clean separation across platform, app, and SecOps teams.
Logging/SIEM	vCenter/ESXi/syslogs exported to SIEM; infra-heavy context, app context via extra tooling.	Cluster + app audit streamed natively; labels/annotations keep workload lineage for faster investigations.
Compliance Operating Model (PDPL/NCA/SAMA)	Process-centric: evidence assembled from vCenter/SRM/backup/ITSM.	Code-centric: policy-as-code + pipelines output evidence packs (RBAC manifests, scans, DR timings) by default.
Data Residency Controls	Clusters/zones and storage policies; prevent cross-border replication via process/tooling.	Namespaces/placement + network policies; block egress/placement in code; easier residency attestations.
Ecosystem	Very large ecosystem of backup, DR, monitoring, networking, and appliances.	Broad CNCF/Red Hat ecosystem; container security, GitOps, service mesh; growing KubeVirt integrations.
Observability	vCenter + ecosystem tools; app telemetry needs extra platforms.	Built-in cluster/app telemetry; integrates with Prometheus/ELK/SIEM; strong app-level context.
Networking	Mature distributed switching, NSX (optional), robust L2/L3 features.	CNI-based networking, service mesh options; needs design for high-throughput/low-latency VMs.
Storage	vSAN and broad array integrations; proven performance and features.	CSI drivers for many arrays; plan carefully for VM IO patterns on container storage.
Upgrades & Lifecycle	Predictable cadence; often maintenance windows; dependence on ecosystem compatibility.	Rolling cluster upgrades; automated via pipelines; strong declarative lifecycle (operators).
Portability/lock-in	Platform lock-in higher; exit strategy requires conversion/tooling.	High portability across on-prem/cloud; policies/pipelines move with you; easier exit posture.
Cloud Options	Hosted VMware offerings with cloud providers; consistent vSphere experience.	Any infrastructure (on-prem/private/public cloud); consistent Kubernetes experience.
Edge & Remote Sites	Solid with ROBO patterns and compact footprints.	Supports edge clusters; GitOps helpful for many small sites.
AI/ML Readiness	GPU passthrough/virtualization for VM-based AI stacks.	Container-first AI toolchains; supports GPU workloads in containers and VMs.
Migration Pathways	P2V within VMware; to containers requires separate toolchains; to other platforms needs planning.	From VMware via wave-based migration: run VMs first, modernize selectively; CI/CD accelerates refactors.
Change Lead Time (Typical)	Days–weeks depending on approvals and tooling.	Hours–days with PR-based workflows and pre-approved policies.
Audit Traceability	Tickets, task logs, exports/screenshots; reliable but manual collation.	Commit history + pipeline logs produce automatic, repeatable evidence bundles.
Best-fit org profile (2025)	Large legacy VM estate, low change velocity, tight migration windows, stable budgets for licenses.	Organizations pushing modernization, cost control, and compliance automation; willing to uplift skills.
Primary Risks	Vendor/price exposure; modernization friction; dual-stack tooling if containers grow.	Skills ramp; VM performance tuning; culture change to GitOps.
KSA Regulator Comfort	Familiar, process-based controls; proven DR/HA artifacts.	Strong alignment with continuous compliance and evidence-by-design; easier policy attestations.
Bottom Line	Safest near-term option for complex VM estates; higher licensing exposure; slower modernization.	Best long-term platform for unified VMs + containers, automation, and compliance-as-code; plan skills enablement.

Quick Guidance:

• If your board priorities are short-term stability and minimal operational change, VMware is pragmatic while you plan modernization.
• If your mandate is cost control, faster change, and policy-driven compliance under PDPL/NCA/SAMA, OpenShift Virtualization usually wins—start with a pilot → scale plan and migrate in waves.

Migration Patterns from VMware to OpenShift

A pragmatic, risk-managed path from VMware vs OpenShift isn’t a single “cutover day.” It’s an incremental program: discover → pilot → scale, with clear guardrails for compliance, DR, and rollback. Here’s a playbook that KSA enterprises can adopt immediately.

Discovery & App Mapping (Waves, Business Criticality)

Goal: Build a migration map that reduces blast radius and unlocks early ROI.

Inputs to Collect

• Inventory: VMs, OS, CPU/RAM, storage IOPS, network dependencies, licenses.
• Business context: Owner, SLA, downtime tolerance, revenue/process criticality.
• Tech fit: Kernel/driver needs, appliances, latency constraints, modernization potential.
• Compliance flags: Data residency, encryption, logging/SIEM, access patterns.

Wave Design

• Wave 0 – Foundations: Tooling, landing zone, RBAC/SSO, CMK/HSM, GitOps, logging/SIEM, backup.
• Wave 1 – Low risk / high learning: Dev/test, internal tools, stateless services, non-PII datasets.
• Wave 2 – Medium complexity: Line-of-business apps, moderate data, scheduled downtime possible.
• Wave 3 – High criticality: Regulated datasets, 24×7 systems, complex integrations; migrate last.

Scoring (1–5)

• Business criticality, Complexity, Compliance sensitivity, Modernization upside.
  Prioritize low score first to build confidence and templates; defer high-score systems to later waves.

Pilot → Scale: 30/60/90-day Rhythm

30 days — Pilot & Proof

• Stand up OpenShift foundation (multi-zone cluster, RBAC/SSO, CMK/HSM, SIEM).
• Enable OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt); validate VM classes, storage, networks.
• Establish GitOps pipelines (build → scan → sign → deploy), admission policies (OPA/Gatekeeper).
• Migrate a handful of VMs (dev/test) and one simple app; document performance and ops runbooks.
• Deliverables: Pilot report, TCO assumptions, performance baseline, DR dry-run evidence.

60 days — Limited Production

• Expand to Wave 1 workloads; introduce blue/green or canary patterns for containerized services.
• Integrate backup/DR tooling; run a supervised DR drill and capture artifacts (RPO/RTO).
• Optimize node sizing & density; tune VM CPU/mem and storage classes; validate patch/upgrade pipelines.
• Deliverables: Operations playbook, DR drill report, cost/utilization dashboard.

90 days — Scale & Operate

• Begin Wave 2 migrations; introduce co-existence with VMware for critical systems.
• Enforce policy-as-code across namespaces; turn on mandatory image signing and SBOM collection.
• Formalize CAB via PRs; measure lead time for change and change failure rate.
• Deliverables: Board update (KPIs, risks, mitigations), 3-year TCO refresh, regulator-ready evidence pack.

Co-Existence Patterns: Keep, Move, Modernize

1) Keep (on VMware)

• When: Appliances, ultra-low-latency VMs, niche drivers, or contractual constraints.
• How: Maintain hardened clusters; integrate with OpenShift via network/service brokers and shared SIEM.

2) Move (to OpenShift Virtualization)

• When: Standard VMs where performance is well-understood; limited refactor appetite near term.
• How: Migrate VM images to KubeVirt; map networks/storage; manage lifecycle via GitOps; validate DR.

3) Modernize (Containers on OpenShift)

• When: Services with frequent releases, scalability needs, or clear TCO gains.
• How: Strangler pattern, API façade, extract stateless services first; adopt Operators and pipelines.

Guardrails

• Single source of truth in git (manifests, policies, runbooks).
• Namespace RBAC separating platform/app/SecOps; quarterly access attestations.
• Shared observability and SIEM to avoid blind spots across platforms.

DR & Cutover Strategies (Cold/Hot, Rollback Plans)

DR Patterns

• Cold DR (cost-efficient): Periodic backups/snapshots to secondary site; RTO hours, RPO minutes–hours.
  • Good for Wave 1/2 systems.
• Warm/Hot DR (mission-critical): Continuous replication, pre-provisioned capacity, automated failover; RTO minutes, RPO seconds–minutes.
  • Reserve for Wave 3 and regulated workloads.

Cutover Playbook

1. Pre-checks: Performance parity, monitoring alarms green, capacity headroom ≥20%, access tests (SSO/RBAC), encryption & keys validated.
2. Change window: Freeze, checkpoint data, switch DNS/ingress, verify health checks and synthetic probes.
3. Validation: Business smoke tests, data integrity checks, SIEM event confirmation, backup job success.
4. Rollback plan: Pre-approved T-minus checkpoints, database restore points, reverse DNS, and a go/no-go gate with named approvers.
5. Post-cutover: 24–72h hypercare, performance tuning, incident review, evidence bundle (timings, logs, approvals) archived.

KPIs to Track

• RPO/RTO achieved vs target in last two drills
• Change lead time (PR → prod) and change failure rate
• Cost per workload (before/after)
• Mean time to detect/recover (MTTD/MTTR)
• Policy violations blocked by admission controls (trend down)

Treat VMware vs OpenShift migration as a wave-based operating-model shift, not a forklift. Start small, automate early, run co-existence where it makes sense, and make DR evidence part of the rhythm. That’s how you lower 3-year TCO, raise agility, and stay audit-ready under PDPL/NCA/SAMA.

Conclusion — Pick the Platform That Matches Your Operating Model

The right answer to VMware vs OpenShift isn’t ideological; it’s operational. Choose the platform that best supports how your teams work, how fast you need to change, and how you’ll evidence compliance under PDPL, NCA ECC, and (where relevant) SAMA quarter after quarter.

If your estate is largely VM-only, change windows are tight, and the near-term mandate is stability, VMware remains pragmatic. It minimizes disruption and leverages mature HA/DR patterns and readily available skills.

If your mandate is to cut 3-year TCO, speed releases, and standardize policy as code across hybrid environments, OpenShift Virtualization compounds value: VMs today, containers tomorrow on one automated, auditable platform.

Treat the decision as an operating-model choice:

• Cost: Where does your 3-year SAR really land when you include licenses, ops headcount, DR drills, and skills enablement?
• Agility: How many safe changes per week do you need? Can approvals and rollbacks be automated through GitOps?
• Risk: What’s your vendor exposure, portability posture, and DR success rate under test?
• Governance: Can you prove residency, access, encryption, logging, and change lineage without slide-ware?

Pick the platform that optimizes your run-rate today and your change-rate tomorrow. For many KSA enterprises, that means co-existence now and a deliberate glide path toward an automated, policy-driven future where the comparison of VMware vs OpenShift becomes less about features and more about how well your operating model can deliver cost, speed, resilience, and audit-readiness at scale.

FAQs — VMware vs OpenShift

Q. Can OpenShift match VMware’s VM performance?
A. For many general workloads, parity is common with correct sizing (CPU topology, hugepages, storage classes) and performance profiles. Validate during the pilot.

Q. Do we still need vSphere if we adopt OpenShift Virtualization?
A. Often for a period. Coexistence lowers risk while you migrate in waves. Keep VMware for workloads that are hard to move early; modernize opportunistically.

Q. How do licenses and support differ over 3 years?
A. Model both the subscription trajectory and the ops/tooling costs. OpenShift can consolidate tooling; VMware’s ecosystem is rich but can be add‑on driven.

Q. What skills does my team need in year one?
A. Git basics, YAML, pipelines, monitoring, and security policy writing. A 90‑day pilot is the fastest path to real fluency.

Q. How do PDPL/NCA/SAMA expectations map to each platform?
A. Both can comply. OpenShift’s policy‑as‑code makes it easier to prove, re‑use, and automate evidence across audits.