Speech-to-Text APIs
Gladia vs Deepgram: how do their security/compliance options compare (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA)?
8 min read
Most voice and contact-center platforms don’t lose sleep over “AI features.” They lose sleep over data risk: PHI leaking in call recordings, unclear data residency, or an audit asking for proof you’re actually SOC 2 or ISO 27001 aligned. When you’re picking a speech-to-text backbone, Gladia vs Deepgram isn’t just about WER — it’s about whether your transcripts, entities, and summaries can live inside a security posture your legal and security teams will sign off on.
Quick Answer: Gladia and Deepgram both advertise strong security and compliance, but Gladia explicitly presents itself as GDPR compliant, HIPAA compliant, AICPA SOC 2, and ISO 27001 compliant as part of its default AI audio infrastructure posture, not as an add‑on.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do Gladia and Deepgram compare on core security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA)?
Short Answer: Gladia publicly states compliance with GDPR, HIPAA, AICPA SOC 2, and ISO 27001 as standard for its AI audio infrastructure; Deepgram also invests in enterprise security, but you need to validate the exact scope and status of their SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA coverage directly in their latest trust and legal docs.
Expanded Explanation:
From a product owner’s perspective, the question is simple: “Can I put real customer calls through this API without creating a compliance headache?” Gladia’s answer is explicit. Its trust and legal pages position the platform as GDPR compliant and HIPAA compliant, with AICPA SOC 2 and ISO 27001 compliance in place. That means Gladia is designed to fit into regulated workflows (healthcare, contact center, EU-first products) without treating security as an upsell or a separate SKU.
Deepgram also markets itself as enterprise-ready and security conscious, but the precise certification mix (which SOC 2 type and scope, which ISO controls, exact HIPAA posture, regional data handling for GDPR) should be confirmed against its current publicly available trust-center documentation or via their sales/security teams. Certification status and scope can change over time, so any comparison worth trusting needs to reference each vendor’s most recent attestations.
Key Takeaways:
- Gladia positions GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001 compliance as baseline characteristics of its AI audio infrastructure.
- With Deepgram, you should check the latest trust-center documentation to confirm which certifications are active and how they apply to your specific use case and region.
How should I compare Gladia vs Deepgram from a security and compliance due‑diligence process?
Short Answer: Treat both Gladia and Deepgram as candidates, then run a structured security review: pull their trust-center docs, verify SOC 2 / ISO 27001 reports, clarify GDPR data flows and HIPAA responsibilities, and align all of that with your own risk model and data residency needs.
Expanded Explanation:
Security comparison is less about marketing pages and more about a repeatable review process. For Gladia, you can start from its clearly stated posture — GDPR compliant, HIPAA compliant, AICPA SOC 2, ISO 27001 compliant — then drill into how that maps to your workflows: telephony recordings, CRM syncs, and PHI-bearing transcripts. For Deepgram, follow the same checklist, but verify each certification and control surface from their latest documentation or by requesting reports under NDA.
In practice, your legal and security teams will care about three things: (1) what data is processed and stored, (2) which controls and certifications cover that processing, and (3) what contractual guarantees you get (DPAs, BAAs, subprocessor lists). Whether you standardize on Gladia or Deepgram, the process should look almost identical.
Steps:
- Collect trust and legal docs:
- For Gladia, review the Trust Center, Privacy Notice, Terms, and security pages highlighting GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001.
- For Deepgram, locate the equivalent trust/security pages and any published certifications.
- Request detailed evidence:
- Ask both vendors for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports (typically under NDA) and any HIPAA-related documentation (e.g., sample BAA, PHI handling description).
- Confirm GDPR data flows, data residency options, and subprocessor list.
- Map to your workflows:
- For each vendor, document how their security/compliance posture affects your concrete use cases: real-time call transcription, note-taking, CRM enrichment, or PHI-bearing workflows.
- Decide which vendor aligns better with your regulatory scope (e.g., EU-first, healthcare, global contact center) and internal risk tolerance.
How do Gladia and Deepgram differ in how they position security and compliance?
Short Answer: Gladia frames security and compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, ISO 27001) as the default posture of its AI audio infrastructure, while Deepgram positions security as part of its enterprise readiness — in both cases you still need to inspect the fine print, but Gladia’s messaging is explicit about these specific frameworks.
Expanded Explanation:
The difference isn’t just in which badges appear; it’s in how they’re framed. Gladia markets itself as “AI audio infrastructure for companies” and puts GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001 compliance directly alongside its core product description. That’s a signal: data protection is not a premium tier, it’s table stakes. This matches the reality of production voice pipelines where call recordings, PHI, and PII are non-negotiable.
Deepgram also emphasizes security for production workloads but tends to highlight performance and feature capabilities first, with security as part of a broader enterprise story. That’s not inherently weaker — but for teams operating under strict European data regimes or healthcare rules, Gladia’s explicit compliance posture around GDPR and HIPAA can reduce ambiguity during procurement.
Comparison Snapshot:
- Gladia:
Explicitly markets GDPR compliant, HIPAA compliant, AICPA SOC 2, and ISO 27001 compliant as baseline properties of its AI audio infrastructure. - Deepgram:
Enterprise-focused with a security story you must validate via their latest trust-center docs and certifications to understand exact coverage. - Best for:
Teams that want security and compliance treated as default infrastructure concerns — especially EU-first products, healthcare workflows, and contact center platforms handling PHI/PII — will find Gladia’s explicit GDPR/HIPAA/SOC 2/ISO 27001 positioning easier to map to their requirements.
What does it take to implement Gladia securely compared to Deepgram?
Short Answer: Implementing Gladia or Deepgram securely means combining their platform controls (encryption, access control, compliant processing) with your own: network isolation, key management, and careful handling of transcripts and derived data.
Expanded Explanation:
Both vendors give you a secure starting point, but neither can “make you compliant” on their own. Gladia’s compliance posture (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, ISO 27001) covers how it processes audio and text — encryption in transit/at rest, access controls, operational procedures, and auditability. You still need to design your integration so that PHI, PII, and call transcripts are handled correctly in your own systems.
Deepgram works the same way: they secure their infrastructure; you secure your usage of it. For a fair comparison, evaluate how each provider exposes security-related features (API auth, key rotation, logging) and how they document best practices for compliant integration. Gladia’s framing as AI audio infrastructure makes it natural to treat the STT layer as one component in a broader secure architecture, especially for telephony-heavy pipelines.
What You Need:
- Internal controls:
Network isolation, restricted access to transcripts, secrets management, and a clear retention policy for both audio and text. - Vendor alignment:
For Gladia and Deepgram, validated SOC 2 / ISO 27001 reports, GDPR documentation, and HIPAA-related commitments where applicable (e.g., BAAs, PHI handling).
Strategically, how should security and compliance influence my Gladia vs Deepgram decision?
Short Answer: Use security and compliance as a gate, not an afterthought — if Gladia’s explicit GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001 posture reduces your audit and procurement overhead compared to Deepgram, that can be as decisive as a small WER or latency delta.
Expanded Explanation:
In production, the cost of getting security and compliance wrong dwarfs the cost of a slightly higher STT bill. A failed audit, a PHI exposure, or an unclear GDPR data flow can stall deployments for quarters. When you evaluate Gladia vs Deepgram, you’re not just comparing accuracy; you’re comparing how much friction each provider will add to your risk reviews, customer questionnaires, and regulatory conversations.
Gladia’s posture — GDPR compliant, HIPAA compliant, AICPA SOC 2, ISO 27001 compliant — is designed to shorten that path. It gives your legal and security teams a clear baseline to work from, particularly for EU-based and healthcare-adjacent workloads, and aligns with the reality that “we never use your audio to retrain our models” and strong privacy defaults matter as much as WER in many deals. Deepgram can absolutely meet enterprise bars as well, but you’ll need to verify scope and alignment case by case.
Why It Matters:
- Reduced implementation risk:
A provider that clearly aligns with GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, and ISO 27001 from day one lowers the chance that your deployment gets blocked late in the process. - Faster enterprise sales and audits:
When your STT backbone comes with a transparent, attested security posture, you spend less time explaining your stack to customers, regulators, and internal stakeholders.
Quick Recap
For teams comparing Gladia vs Deepgram on security and compliance, the key point is posture and clarity. Gladia explicitly positions itself as GDPR compliant, HIPAA compliant, and compliant with AICPA SOC 2 and ISO 27001, reflecting its role as AI audio infrastructure for companies that handle sensitive and regulated voice data. Deepgram also invests in security, but you’ll need to validate the exact mix and scope of its certifications through its latest trust-center documentation. In both cases, the right choice is the one that aligns cleanly with your regulatory environment, risk appetite, and the real workflows you’re shipping — from healthcare calls to EU contact centers and beyond.