Compare my CMMC provider path
2 min. No email required.Compare →

FutureFeed CMMC Review: An Independent, Source-Checked Buyer’s Guide (2026)

Q: How much does FutureFeed cost?

As verified in June 2026: $99/month annual for Innovator (25 or fewer employees) and $399/month annual for Standard (26 to 999 employees), with Enterprise custom. CMMC Level 1 is included free, Level 2 is $1,008/year, and Level 3 is $10,000/year. A common setup -- the Innovator plan on an annual term plus Level 2 -- totals about $2,196/year. Confirm current pricing before signing; the software is a small fraction of total CMMC cost.

By The Defense Compliance Report Editorial Team · Published June 9, 2026· Last verified June 9, 2026

Evaluation depth: public-source profile — we reviewed FutureFeed’s product, pricing, support, and FedRAMP documentation and mapped its claims against the primary CMMC regulations. This is not a hands-on lab test of the live platform. We tell you exactly what we verified, and what we didn’t, below.

If you’re reading a FutureFeed CMMC review, you’ve probably already been told to “get a GRC tool,” seen FutureFeed recommended by a managed service provider or a Reddit thread, or you’re staring at a quote and want the straight version before you spend money or burn six weeks. Here it is, up front.

FutureFeed is a credible shortlist pick if what you actually need is a CMMC-focused system of record: one place to run your gap assessment, calculate and maintain your SPRS score (the DoD database where your assessment score lives), build and keep your System Security Plan (SSP), track your Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M), and organize evidence for an assessment. It is software, not a shortcut. It does not implement your security controls, perform your certification assessment, or make your organization compliant.

That distinction is where most buyers get it wrong, and it’s the part the demo won’t volunteer. We read FutureFeed’s own pricing page, its support knowledge base, and its FedRAMP announcement and support summary, then checked every regulatory claim against the source rules — 32 CFR Part 170, the DFARS clauses, and the NIST publications. Below: the verdict, the verified numbers, the one thing the demo won’t tell you, and a 19-question demo checklist that turns a sales pitch into due diligence.

FutureFeed relationship: We have no paid placement, sponsorship, or affiliate link to FutureFeed on this page. If you use our matching service and we make a qualified introduction to a CMMC provider, we may be compensated, as described above.

Not advice: This guide is educational reporting, not legal, contractual, or compliance advice. Confirm your obligations in your solicitation, contract, and flow-down terms, and with qualified counsel or your contracting officer.

Independence: The Defense Compliance Report is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, the CMMC Program Management Office, The Cyber AB, or FutureFeed, except where a relationship is explicitly disclosed on this page.

What we verified

Item	Detail
Provider category	CMMC-focused cyber-GRC software — compliance documentation, scoring, and evidence management. Not a C3PAO, not a managed service, not a CUI enclave.
Cyber AB status check	No software product is "Cyber AB approved." The Cyber AB accredits assessment organizations and credentials people — not GRC tools. No Cyber AB software-approval category exists that applies to FutureFeed.
Services reviewed	Public product, pricing, support/knowledge-base (evidence export, hashing guidance, Assessor Role, FedRAMP equivalency summary), and the FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency announcement.
Compensation relationship	No paid placement or affiliate link to FutureFeed on this page; compensation arises only from qualified introductions through our independent matching service, as disclosed.
Evaluation depth	Public-source and primary-regulatory verification plus product, support, pricing, and security documentation review. Not a hands-on test of the live platform.
Last verified	June 9, 2026.
What we could not verify	Hands-on workflow quality, real-world export and SSP quality in production, customer references, whether any given C3PAO will accept FutureFeed’s exports, and FutureFeed’s company-stated client and partner counts.

The bottom line up front: our FutureFeed CMMC review verdict

FutureFeed is a CMMC-focused cyber-GRC platform built by Continuous Compliance LLC for the Defense Industrial Base. It is a strong shortlist option for contractors and service providers who need to organize and maintain NIST SP 800-171 evidence, SPRS scoring, SSPs, and POA&Ms. It does not implement security controls, perform certification assessments, or make an organization compliant on its own — for CMMC Level 2, status depends on implementing the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 requirements in your defined scope and using the self-assessment or C3PAO path your contract requires.

Dimension	Verdict
Overall	A focused CMMC system of record with transparent, openly published pricing. Strongest as a documentation, scoring, and evidence-management layer — not as your entire compliance program.
Choose FutureFeed if…	You have, or can assign, an internal compliance owner and you need structure for SSP, POA&M, SPRS scoring, control status, and assessment-prep — and you want a tool built specifically for CMMC rather than a general-purpose platform.
Don’t make it your only solution if…	You still need someone to implement controls, stand up a secure environment for Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), run security operations, or perform your formal assessment. Those are services, not software.
Cost reality	Public, transparent, and openly published: $99–$399/mo (core, annual) + $1,008/yr (Level 2). Software is the cheapest and clearest line on a CMMC budget — not the hard part.
The catch	FutureFeed does not hash your evidence package or implement your controls, and — by its own guidance — it isn’t meant to store raw CUI. Your export is only as complete as the mapping work you put in. More on that below; it’s the most important paragraph on this page.

Already evaluating and just want the practical stuff? Skip ahead to the 12-month cost breakdown or the demo checklistfurther down. Otherwise, keep reading — the next two sections decide whether you need software at all, and that’s the most expensive thing to get wrong in CMMC.

What FutureFeed actually is — and what it does for CMMC

FutureFeed is made by Continuous Compliance LLC, a Baltimore-based company led by CEO Mark Berman. The DIB-specific focus is the cleanest line between FutureFeed and the broader GRC field: this tool was designed around CMMC and NIST SP 800-171 from the start, not retrofitted from a SOC 2 platform.

The platform organizes work into a guided workflow (the company uses a “subway stop” metaphor for the major stages — Assess, Technology, Deliverables, SSP, and so on). The practical promise is “enter your information once, and the tool keeps your score, plan, and evidence in sync.” Here’s the honest split between what the software does and what stays on your plate.

What FutureFeed does vs. what you still own

CMMC job	What FutureFeed is built to do	What you still own
Gap assessment	Guided questions, NIST 800-171-based inputs, automatic score calculation	The accuracy of your answers and the evidence behind them
SPRS score	Live score visibility that updates as your inputs change	The truthful basis for the score and the official submission
SSP	Generate and maintain your System Security Plan from your inputs	Whether the documented controls are actually implemented and in scope
POA&M	Create, assign, and track remediation items	Doing the remediation and closing items with real evidence
Evidence	Store artifacts, map them to requirements and objectives, export them	Whether the evidence is adequate, sufficient, current, and accepted
Reporting	Leadership and assessment-prep reports	Whether the controls actually operate the way the report says
Collaboration	Internal roles, ownership, and optional read-only assessor access	Accountability, governance cadence, and program ownership

The FutureFeed CMMC Buyer Verification Matrix

Each major claim paired with its source type, what it means for you, what it does not prove, and the one thing to verify before you rely on it.

Buyer question	What public sources show	What it means	What it does not prove	Verify before you rely on it
What category is it?	FutureFeed describes itself as a cyber-GRC platform for NIST SP 800-171 and CMMC (company-stated).	Treat it as CMMC-focused documentation, scoring, and evidence software.	That it’s a C3PAO or a substitute for implementing controls.	Whether your real need is software, a managed-compliance partner, an enclave, or an assessor.
SPRS scoring	Company states it runs a gap assessment, calculates your score, and keeps SPRS information current.	Useful if your problem is organized, maintainable scoring.	That the score is accurate — that depends on your inputs and evidence.	How scoring maps to the NIST SP 800-171A assessment objectives.
SSP & POA&M	Company states it generates the SSP and auto-creates and tracks POA&Ms.	Good fit if your SSP/POA&M process is spreadsheet-driven today.	That a generated SSP equals implemented controls.	Ask for a redacted sample SSP export and a live POA&M-to-closeout walkthrough.
Evidence export	Support docs: an "Evidence Export (for Files and Data)" lives in the Deliverables section; completeness depends on how well you’ve linked artifacts to requirements and objectives.	A genuine evidence system of record — if you do the mapping.	That the export is automatically complete or assessment-ready.	Ask to see a real export package and confirm what "complete" looks like for your scope.
Evidence hashing	Support docs are explicit: hashing is not built in and must be done outside the tool, using the DoD CMMC Hashing Guide.	This is a process step you (or a partner) own.	That FutureFeed produces the final hashed package a C3PAO expects.	Decide who hashes, freezes, packages, and retains evidence — and how.
Assessor access	Support docs describe an optional read-only Assessor Role (Compliance Dashboard + SSP, no edit rights).	Can reduce friction during an assessment.	That every C3PAO wants or accepts direct platform access.	Ask your assessor whether they prefer direct access, exports, or both.
Pricing	Public pricing page (verified June 2026): $99–$399/mo core (annual) + per-level framework fees.	Transparent enough to budget before a demo.	That it covers labor, remediation, enclave, tooling, or assessment cost.	Confirm term, renewal, add-ons, onboarding, and support tier.
Security / CUI	Company states FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency (Lunarline 3PAO, Feb 2026) on AWS GovCloud; support docs say it does not recommend storing CUI directly in the platform.	Appropriate for SSPs and confidential compliance documentation — not as a CUI repository.	That it’s a full FedRAMP Authorization, or a place for raw CUI.	Read the attestation scope and Customer Responsibility Matrix; confirm in writing what data you may store.
Public reviews	Capterra showed 0 user reviews at our check; Reddit has limited anecdotal discussion.	Don’t read star ratings into this product — there essentially aren’t any.	That the product is good or bad. Low review volume proves neither.	Ask for references from companies in your size band and CMMC level.

What FutureFeed doesn’t do (the part the demo won’t volunteer)

No CMMC software makes an organization compliant or certified on its own, and FutureFeed is no exception. Under 32 CFR Part 170 — the CMMC Program rule, effective December 16, 2024 — CMMC verifies that a contractor has actually implementedthe required security controls. Software can document, score, and organize a program; it cannot implement controls, and FutureFeed’s own support documentation confirms it does not perform evidence hashing.

FutureFeed will not make you compliant, and it stops short of producing your final, hashed evidence package.

It doesn’t hash your evidence.

FutureFeed’s support knowledge base states directly that the platform does not include built-in evidence file or folder hashing, and that hashing must be performed outside FutureFeed following the DoD CIO’s official CMMC Hashing Guide. Hashing is how you prove your evidence package wasn’t altered after the assessment — it matters at a Level 2 C3PAO assessment.

Your export is only as good as your mapping.

The same documentation is candid that the Evidence Export reflects exactly how well you’ve uploaded artifacts and linked them to the right requirements and assessment objectives. If your team hasn’t done that mapping work, the export won’t represent a complete Body of Evidence. The tool organizes; it doesn’t conjure.

This should raise your confidence, not lower it. This isn’t a FutureFeed flaw — it’s true of every honest GRC platform in this category. A tool that claimed to “auto-certify” you would be the dangerous one, because CMMC assessors evaluate your real environment against each NIST SP 800-171A objective, not a dashboard that says “MET.” The fact that FutureFeed publishes the DoD Hashing Guide link and offers a read-only Assessor Role tells you it’s built by people who understand how an actual assessment runs. That’s a green flag.

The real question isn’t “does FutureFeed have a gap?” It’s: which job are you actually hiring for?

If your job is to organize, score, and maintaina CMMC program and you have someone to own it — FutureFeed is squarely in its lane.
If your job is to implement controls, stand up a compliant environment, or run security operations — that’s a managed-compliance or MSP/MSSP engagement. Software alone will frustrate you.
If your job is the formal assessment— that’s a C3PAO, and readiness work must stay appropriately separate from the assessment itself.

Not sure which of those is your bottleneck?

That’s the most expensive thing to get wrong in CMMC, and it’s the easiest to get right with five minutes of triage. Tell us your CMMC level, your scope, and your timeline, and we’ll point you to the source-checked provider categories that fit — software, managed compliance, CUI enclave, or assessment.

Get matched with the right CMMC provider category →

How much does FutureFeed cost in 2026?

Credit where due: FutureFeed publishes real numbers instead of forcing every buyer into “contact sales.” We verified the following directly from futurefeed.co/pricing in June 2026.

FutureFeed pricing (verified June 2026)

Item	Public price	Notes
Innovator (≤25 FTEs)	$99/mo annual · $90/mo on 2-yr · $88/mo on 3-yr · $198/mo month-to-month	Core platform; includes CMMC Level 1 free
Standard (26–999 FTEs)	$399/mo annual · $365/mo on 2-yr · $354/mo on 3-yr · $798/mo month-to-month	Core platform; includes CMMC Level 1 free
Enterprise (1,000+ FTEs)	Custom annual contract	Adds SSO, private training, priority support
CMMC Level 1	Included free with Core	Basic FAR safeguarding, 15 requirements
CMMC Level 2	$1,008/yr	Level 2 + NIST SP 800-171 + dynamic SPRS scoring
CMMC Level 3	$10,000/yr	Company-stated. Regulatory path: Level 3 uses 24 selected NIST SP 800-172 requirements and requires Final Level 2 (C3PAO) status before the Level 3 DIBCAC assessment.
ISO 27001 / 27002:2022	$750/yr + ANSI royalty	Only relevant for multi-framework buyers; add a framework, save 5% on each

Every core plan includes unlimited users, live SSP management, POA&M tracking, project management, and data storage on AWS GovCloud (company-stated).

What a year actually costs (verified math)

Configuration	12-month total
Innovator, annual term + Level 2	$2,196/year ($99 × 12 + $1,008)
Innovator, month-to-month + Level 2	$3,384/year ($198 × 12 + $1,008)
Standard, annual term + Level 2	$5,796/year ($399 × 12 + $1,008)
Standard, month-to-month + Level 2	$10,584/year ($798 × 12 + $1,008)

The annual term roughly halves the monthly rate. If you’re confident FutureFeed fits, the month-to-month plan is an expensive way to stay flexible.

The add-ons most buyers don’t budget for

FutureFeed also resells third-party tools that solve problems the core platform doesn’t:

Teramis (CUI discovery & monitoring): scoping license from $1,500 (one-time, small business) up to $7,500 (enterprise); ongoing monitoring from $4,200/year (small business) to $25,000/year (enterprise).
CompliancyIT IT Documentation Toolkit: $4,995 one-time + $1,000/year maintenance after year one.
CMMC Provider Fast-Track (by InTech Solutions): $600/month for 12 months ($7,200 total) — a coaching program, not software.

Where the software cost actually sits

Cost bucket	Who provides it	Typical relative size
GRC software (e.g., FutureFeed)	Software vendor	$ — smallest, and the clearest
Remediation labor (closing real control gaps)	You, an MSP/MSSP, or an RPO	$$$ — often the largest
Secure environment for CUI (e.g., GCC High, enclave)	MSP/MSSP or enclave provider	$$$
Security tooling (EDR, logging, vuln management)	Various	$$
C3PAO assessment (if Level 2 certification is required)	A C3PAO	$$ — and scheduling takes planning

If your budget anxiety is about the software, you’re worried about the wrong number. The expensive, time-consuming part of CMMC is implementing controls and (if required) getting assessed. FutureFeed can make that work more organized. It can’t make it cheaper to do. See our CMMC Level 2 cost breakdown for the full sizing picture.

How FutureFeed maps to real CMMC Level 2 requirements

CMMC Level 2 is an assessment status, not a software feature. It is built on the 110 security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2, organized into 14 control families, and a contract determines whether you may self-assess or must use a C3PAO. For the plain-English overview, see our guide to CMMC Level 1 vs. Level 2 vs. Level 3.

Level 1 covers Federal Contract Information (FCI) and maps to 15 requirements from FAR 52.204-21. Annual self-assessment.
Level 2 covers Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and maps to the 110 requirements in NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2, across 14 control families. Either self-assessed or assessed by a C3PAO depending on the contract.
Level 3 adds 24 selected requirements from NIST SP 800-172 and is assessed by DIBCAC, not a C3PAO.

Key mechanics from 32 CFR Part 170: Level 2 self-assessment results go into SPRS; Level 2 C3PAO results are entered by the assessor and flow to SPRS; after an assessment, a senior official must submit an affirmation of continuing compliance — at the assessment and annually thereafter. POA&Ms are allowed only for certain requirements and must be closed within 180 days.

CMMC Level 2 reality	Where FutureFeed helps	What stays outside the tool
Define your assessment scope	Stores system, asset, and documentation info	The actual CUI discovery and scoping judgment
Assess the 110 requirements	Guided inputs and automatic scoring	Objective evidence that each control is implemented
Build the SSP	Generates and maintains SSP content	Accuracy, technical depth, and the customer responsibility matrix
Manage POA&Ms	Creates and tracks items, supports the 180-day clock	Doing the remediation and producing closeout evidence
Maintain the SPRS score	Live, dynamic score as inputs change	The truthful basis and official submission
Prepare C3PAO evidence	Exports and optional read-only assessor access	Evidence sufficiency, hashing, and assessor acceptance

One regulatory trap: Revision 2 vs. Revision 3. FutureFeed has added support for NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3, which is reasonable forward planning. But for CMMC Level 2 today, the rule still points to Revision 2. Until the DoD formally amends the CMMC rule, your Level 2 obligation is the Rev. 2 control set. Build to Rev. 2 for your current assessment, and treat Rev. 3 features as future-proofing — not as your present requirement.

Will FutureFeed get you through a C3PAO assessment?

No software product is sufficient on its own to pass a C3PAO assessment. A C3PAO evaluates evidence against the NIST SP 800-171A assessment objectives within the defined scope, judging both adequacy and sufficiency. FutureFeed can organize and present that evidence — and offers an optional read-only assessor view — but passing depends on controls being implemented and the evidence being complete, current, and accepted.

A dashboard that says “MET” is not the same as passing. Assessors don’t grade your software; they grade your environment. FutureFeed’s own support documentation uses two terms every Level 2 buyer should know:

Adequacy asks: am I showing the right thing? (Does this evidence actually correspond to the requirement?)
Sufficiency asks: am I showing enough? (Is the requirement demonstrably implemented across all in-scope assets, in practice — not just on paper?)

You need both. A beautifully generated SSP describing controls you haven’t turned on fails on sufficiency. A pile of screenshots that don’t map to the objective fails on adequacy. FutureFeed gives you a structured place to assemble adequate, sufficient evidence — and the read-only Assessor Role can let your C3PAO navigate your SSP and Body of Evidence directly. That can genuinely smooth the process. But the work of being assessable is yours.

One rule that catches contractors off guard:keep your readiness help separate from your assessor. Under 32 CFR Part 170 (§ 170.9), C3PAOs must follow the Accreditation Body’s conflict-of-interest policy. In plain terms, a C3PAO generally cannot assess an organization it consulted or helped prepare — the commonly applied look-back is three years. Plan for two relationships, not one.

Use this decision rule:

If you know your CUI scope and have technical control owners, FutureFeed-as-system-of-record is a sensible choice; your gap is organization, and the tool closes it.
If your controls are weak, your scope is fuzzy, or no one owns compliance internally, you need readiness and implementation help before or alongsideany tool. Buying software first just gives you a tidy record of a program that isn’t ready.
If you’re genuinely assessment-ready,your next move is a C3PAO — kept independent from your readiness work, per the rule above. See our authorized C3PAO directory.

A scheduling reality worth saying out loud: a tool can be live in days, but an implemented environment and a booked C3PAO assessment cannot. Confirm assessment windows with candidate C3PAOs before you bank on a deadline.

Before you book five demos, settle the path first

Software, managed compliance, CUI enclave, or C3PAO — they solve different problems, and buying in the wrong order wastes the one thing you can’t get back: time. Tell us your level, scope, and deadline and we’ll show you the source-checked categories that fit.

Compare CMMC provider categories →Start with our readiness checklist

Is your CUI safe in FutureFeed? The FedRAMP question, answered precisely

FutureFeed announced FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency in February 2026, based on an independent assessment by Lunarline, a FedRAMP-accredited Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO), of its AWS GovCloud infrastructure against NIST 800-53 Revision 5 controls. FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency is a DoD-recognized pathway relevant to DFARS 252.204-7012 for cloud services that handle covered defense information, and it is distinct from a full FedRAMP Authorization listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace.

FutureFeed migrated to AWS GovCloud in 2021, engaged Project Hosts to implement the control set, and had Lunarline assess the environment against the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. Lunarline’s audit began November 10, 2025; the Security Assessment Report followed in February 2026; and FutureFeed published an attestation of FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency.

Four distinct things people blur into one:

FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency (what FutureFeed claims)

A DoD-recognized equivalency path under the DoD CIO memorandum. Demonstrates alignment with the FedRAMP Moderate control set without a full FedRAMP Authorization. Relevant to DFARS 252.204-7012, which requires a cloud service that stores, processes, or transmits covered defense information to meet FedRAMP Moderate or equivalent requirements.

A full FedRAMP Authorization (listed on the FedRAMP Marketplace)

A different status. "Equivalency" is not "Authorized." Neither is wrong; they aren't interchangeable, and your prime or contracting officer may care which one they require.

"100% AWS GovCloud FedRAMP High data storage"

Language on FutureFeed's pricing page that refers to the underlying AWS GovCloud infrastructure, which carries its own high-baseline authorization at the cloud-infrastructure layer. That is not the same as the FutureFeed application being 'FedRAMP High.' The application's attested status is Moderate Equivalency.

FutureFeed does not position itself as a place to store raw CUI

Its own support summary says it does not recommend storing CUI directly within the platform. The value of the equivalency is confidence in storing SSPs and confidential compliance documentation that describe how you protect CUI — not the CUI itself. That’s a point in FutureFeed’s favor for honesty.

What’s stated	What it actually means	What you verify
FutureFeed: “FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency” (Lunarline 3PAO, Feb 2026)	Alignment with the FedRAMP Moderate (NIST 800-53 Rev. 5) baseline; a DoD-recognized posture, not a Marketplace Authorization	Read the attestation and confirm the assessment scope matches your use
Regulation: DFARS 252.204-7012	A cloud service handling covered defense information must meet FedRAMP Moderate (or equivalent) requirements	Whether your prime/CO accepts “equivalency” or specifically requires a Marketplace “Authorization”
FutureFeed support: “we don’t recommend storing CUI directly in the platform”	It’s built for SSPs and compliance documentation, not as a CUI repository	In writing, what data you may store for your contract — and get the Customer Responsibility Matrix

Being transparent enough to publish a 3PAO attestation and to tell customers not to dump raw CUI in the tool puts FutureFeed ahead of plenty of competitors. If your real problem is handlingCUI safely, that’s a different category — see our guide to CUI enclaves and secure CUI environments.

FutureFeed alternatives: Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, PreVeil, and a spreadsheet

Don’t compare logos. Compare bottlenecks. These products aren’t really competitors — they solve different problems, and a mature program often uses more than one. Confirm any specific competitor’s current CMMC capabilities on that vendor’s official documentation before deciding; the categories below are positioning, not a feature audit.

Category	Built for	Representative names	Where FutureFeed fits	Best when your bottleneck is…
CMMC-specific GRC	Defense contractors who need a CMMC/NIST 800-171 system of record	FutureFeed, and a handful of DIB-focused peers	This is FutureFeed’s lane — purpose-built, with public CMMC pricing	"We need to organize, score, and maintain our CMMC program."
Broad GRC automation	Companies juggling many frameworks (SOC 2, ISO, HIPAA, plus CMMC)	Vanta, Drata, Secureframe	Generally heavier on automated evidence collection; CMMC is one framework among many, often template-based	"We have multiple frameworks and want automated, continuous evidence across SaaS."
CUI enclave / secure collaboration	Organizations that need to handle CUI safely (email, files, sharing)	PreVeil, GCC High environments	Different job entirely — FutureFeed tracks compliance; an enclave secures the data	"We can’t safely store or share CUI in the first place."
Spreadsheet	Very early scoping or simple Level 1 work	Excel, SharePoint	FutureFeed adds structure, scoring, and fewer manual errors as you scale	"We’re just figuring out scope and have almost no evidence yet."

Use this to self-route:

“We don’t know where our CUI is”→ start with scoping/CUI discovery, not a GRC dashboard.
“We can’t safely store or send CUI” → that’s an enclave (e.g., PreVeil, GCC High), not a tracker.
“Our controls aren’t implemented” → that’s readiness/implementation (MSP/MSSP/RPO), with software as a supporting layer.
“We have controls but no evidence system” → this is where FutureFeed or a broad GRC tool earns its place.
“We need to get certified”→ that’s a C3PAO, kept independent from your readiness work.

If you realized FutureFeed isn’t actually your problem

We’ll match you with source-checked options in the right category based on your level, scope, and timeline.

Tell us your situation and get matched to the right category →

Is FutureFeed a C3PAO or “Cyber AB approved”?

No. FutureFeed is software, not a C3PAO, and no CMMC GRC software product has a Cyber AB software-approval status. The Cyber AB (the Accreditation Body for the CMMC ecosystem) authorizes and accredits ecosystem organizations such as C3PAOs and Registered Provider Organizations (RPOs) and credentials individuals — it does not create an “approved software” credential for tools like FutureFeed.

FutureFeed is not a C3PAO.It cannot assess or certify you. It can help you prepare and, through its own marketplace, connect you with providers — but the certification comes from an authorized C3PAO (for Level 2) or DIBCAC (for Level 3).
There’s no “Cyber AB-approved software” credential. The Cyber AB authorizes and accredits people and assessment organizations, not compliance tools. If you see a tool described as “Cyber AB approved,” treat it as marketing shorthand, not a credential.
FutureFeed’s own marketplace is not a Cyber AB accreditation. It’s a useful feature; it is not an ecosystem credential.

Never accept from any software vendor:“DoD-approved” or “Cyber AB-certified” software, “guaranteed CMMC certification,” or “assessment-ready by default.” Verify the specific assessor or provider directly on the official Cyber AB Marketplace before any decision.

Who should use FutureFeed — and who shouldn’t

Fit by buyer type

Buyer	FutureFeed fit	Why
Small DIB contractor, CUI in scope	Strong shortlist	CMMC-specific workflow and transparent pricing suit a small team better than enterprise GRC
Level 2 self-assessment contractor	Strong shortlist	SPRS score, SSP, POA&M, and affirmation prep are exactly the job
Level 2 C3PAO-bound contractor	Strong, but not sufficient alone	Verify evidence export, hashing process, and assessor workflow first
MSP / RPO serving multiple DIB clients	Strong shortlist	Purpose-built for repeatable, multi-client CMMC workflows
Tiny FCI-only Level 1 contractor	Maybe	Could be more tool than you need unless you want the structure
Company with no internal compliance owner	Weak standalone fit	You need readiness leadership before (or with) software
Company that needs CUI secured first	Wrong tool	That’s an enclave, not a GRC tracker

Fit by where you are in the journey

Your stage	FutureFeed fit	Better next step
Just discovered you handle CUI	Medium	Scoping + a readiness partner
Building your SSP and POA&M	High	A FutureFeed demo, with SSP export review
Remediating real control gaps	Medium	MSP/MSSP/RPO help, with software alongside
Preparing for a C3PAO	High — if evidence is mature	A C3PAO evidence-readiness review
Maintaining after assessment	High	Ongoing system of record

A 60-second FutureFeed fit check

Answer honestly. You don’t need software to score this.

Do you have an internal ownerwho will keep evidence, the SSP, and the score current? (No owner → software won’t save you.)
Is your CUI scope already defined?(Not yet → scope first.)
Are your core controls actually implemented, or mostly aspirational? (Mostly aspirational → readiness/implementation first.)
Can you safely store and share CUI today?(No → you need an enclave, not a tracker.)
Is your next milestone “organize and prove,” or “build and remediate”? (“Organize and prove” → FutureFeed fits.)

Mostly yes?FutureFeed is a reasonable shortlist pick — go see it on your own data. A couple of hard nos(no owner, undefined scope, unimplemented controls, or no safe place for CUI)? Don’t buy software yet — it’ll document a program that isn’t ready. Route to the gap that’s actually blocking you →

What to verify before you sign: the FutureFeed demo checklist

The most useful CMMC software demo uses your scope, your control owners, your evidence types, and your timeline — not a generic click-through. Bring these 19 questions to the demo to turn a sales pitch into due diligence.

Evidence and assessment

Show me a sample (redacted) Level 2 SSP export.
Walk a POA&M from open gap to closed, with evidence.
How does scoring map to the NIST SP 800-171A objectives?
Show me a real evidence export package from the Deliverables section.
Can evidence be mapped to each objective, not just each requirement?
Walk me through how we hash and package that export for a C3PAO.
Can our C3PAO use read-only access during the assessment?
How do we retain artifacts for the required retention period?

Scope, data, and security

How does it handle multiple CAGE codes, enclaves, or subsidiaries?
Given that you don’t recommend storing raw CUI, what exactly should live in the platform for us?
Show me the FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency attestation and its scope.
What’s in the Customer Responsibility Matrix — what’s our job vs. yours?

Commercial and exit

What’s the exact term, and what happens at renewal?
Which frameworks are included vs. add-ons?
Is onboarding included, and what support tier comes with our plan?
If we cancel, can we export everything— evidence included?

Honesty check

Which parts of our CMMC program does FutureFeed not address?
What would make us a bad fit for this tool?
Can you give references from companies our size and CMMC level?

For the record: FutureFeed publishes its support tiers. Standard support targets a two-business-day response; enhanced support (additional fee) targets eight business hours. Confirm which tier your plan includes — response time matters when you’re days from an assessment.

Want a second set of eyes before you commit?

A 20-minute conversation about your level, scope, and current stack will tell you whether FutureFeed is the right buy or whether your money belongs in a different category first.

Get a source-checked read on your options before you sign →

What real FutureFeed users say

Public review volume for FutureFeed is limited — its Capterra profile showed zero user reviews at our last check — so this guide does not assign a star rating. The most useful public signal comes from practitioner discussion in CMMC communities.

Public Review Evidence Snapshot — checked June 9, 2026

Source	What it shows	What it can prove
Capterra (FutureFeed profile)	0 user reviews at our check	Public review volume is essentially nonexistent — not a quality signal either way
Reddit (r/CMMC)	A small number of comments	Voice-of-customer color only; not regulatory or quality proof
FutureFeed support page	Support targets: 2 business days (standard); 8 business hours (enhanced, paid)	The company’s stated response commitments — confirm your tier

What to ask for instead of relying on reviews: references from companies in your size band and at your CMMC level, an example assessment-prep package, and — if you’ll use a partner — references from that partner’s clients. Real references beat star ratings every time in this market.

How we evaluated FutureFeed

This profile was built from public-source verification and primary-source regulatory mapping, not vendor-supplied private data or hands-on testing.

What we verified: FutureFeed’s product positioning, pricing (futurefeed.co/pricing, June 2026), and support documentation on evidence export, hashing, the Assessor Role, and CUI storage guidance; its FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency announcement and support summary (February 2026); and the public review picture (Capterra, Reddit). We mapped every regulatory claim to the primary sources: 32 CFR Part 170 (effective December 16, 2024), the CMMC acquisition rule and DFARS 252.204-7021 (effective November 10, 2025), and NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 / 800-172.

What we treated as company-stated (accurate to report, but yours to verify before relying on it): feature claims, client and partner counts, and the FedRAMP equivalency scope. We label these as claims and tell you how to confirm them.

What we did not verify: a hands-on test of the live platform, the real-world quality of exports or generated SSPs, customer references, whether a given C3PAO accepts FutureFeed’s exports, and any current commercial relationship between this publication and FutureFeed beyond what’s disclosed above. If we couldn’t confirm it, we said so.

See our editorial standards and methodology. Last verified: June 9, 2026.

FutureFeed CMMC review: frequently asked questions

Is FutureFeed a C3PAO?

No. FutureFeed is compliance software, not an assessment organization. A C3PAO is authorized to perform CMMC Level 2 certification assessments; FutureFeed can help you prepare and can connect you to providers through its marketplace, but it cannot assess or certify you.

Does FutureFeed make you CMMC compliant or certified?

No. It helps you plan, document, score, and track your program. For Level 2, CMMC status depends on implementing the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 requirements in your defined scope and using the self-assessment or C3PAO path your contract requires; Level 3 is assessed by the government’s DIBCAC.

How much does FutureFeed cost?

As verified in June 2026: $99/month (annual) for Innovator (≤25 employees) and $399/month (annual) for Standard (26–999 employees), with Enterprise custom. CMMC Level 1 is included free, Level 2 is $1,008/year, and Level 3 is $10,000/year. A common setup — Innovator annual + Level 2 — totals about $2,196/year. Confirm current pricing before signing; the software is a small fraction of total CMMC cost.

Does FutureFeed write my SSP for me?

It generates and maintains SSP content from the information you enter and tracks your POA&M, which saves significant re-keying. You still have to provide accurate inputs and ensure the documented controls are actually implemented.

Does FutureFeed hash my evidence for a C3PAO assessment?

No. FutureFeed’s support documentation states hashing is not built in and must be performed outside the tool using the DoD CMMC Hashing Guide. The platform’s evidence export is only as complete as the artifact-to-requirement mapping your team has done.

Can my C3PAO access FutureFeed directly?

Optionally, yes. FutureFeed offers a read-only Assessor Role with access to the Compliance Dashboard and SSP and no edit rights. Confirm with your assessor whether they prefer direct access, exports, or both.

Is FutureFeed FedRAMP authorized? Can I store CUI in it?

FutureFeed states it achieved FedRAMP Moderate Equivalency in February 2026, attested by the 3PAO Lunarline, on AWS GovCloud infrastructure. Moderate Equivalency is a DoD-recognized pathway under the DoD CIO memo, but it is distinct from a full FedRAMP Authorization on the FedRAMP Marketplace. Importantly, FutureFeed’s own guidance says it does not recommend storing CUI directly in the platform — it’s intended for SSPs and confidential compliance documentation. Review the attestation scope and confirm permitted data with FutureFeed before relying on it.

Does FutureFeed support NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 or Rev. 3?

FutureFeed has added Rev. 3 support, which is useful forward planning, but CMMC Level 2 today still maps to Rev. 2 unless the DoD amends the rule. Build to Rev. 2 for your current assessment.

Is FutureFeed Cyber AB approved?

No software is Cyber AB approved. The Cyber AB accredits assessment organizations and credentials individuals, not GRC tools. Verify any specific assessor or provider on the official Cyber AB Marketplace.

Can an MSP or RPO use FutureFeed for multiple clients?

FutureFeed’s public profiles position it for contractors and suppliers, RPOs and MSPs, and assessors. Confirm per-client pricing, data ownership, role separation, and export rights before standardizing on it.

FutureFeed vs. Vanta or Drata — which is better for CMMC?

They’re different categories. FutureFeed is purpose-built for CMMC with a DIB-first workflow; Vanta and Drata are broad, automation-heavy platforms designed first for frameworks like SOC 2, with CMMC added via templates. If you want a guided CMMC-first program, FutureFeed fits the lane; if you need automation across many frameworks, evaluate the broad platforms and confirm their CMMC mapping holds up to a C3PAO assessment.

Is FutureFeed better than a spreadsheet?

For maintaining Level 2 evidence, scoring, SSPs, and POA&Ms over time, almost certainly — the structure reduces errors and re-keying. For very early scoping or simple Level 1 work, a spreadsheet may be enough.

The next CMMC decision is yours — here’s how to make it without guessing

You came for a verdict on FutureFeed, and you have one: it’s a solid CMMC system of record with transparent, openly published pricing, for organizations that have an owner and need to organize and prove their program — and it’s the wrong first purchase if your real gap is scope, implementation, secure CUI handling, or an assessment. If FutureFeed fits your lane, the honest next step is to see it on your own data and bring the demo checklist above.

If you’re still weighing whether you need software, a managed-compliance partner, a CUI enclave, or a C3PAO, don’t guess — that’s the decision where guessing gets expensive.

Need help deciding what type of CMMC provider you need?

Tell us your level, scope, and timeline, and we’ll match you with source-checked CMMC provider options.

Get matched with source-checked CMMC provider options →

Related guides

Disclosure:The Defense Compliance Report is an independent trade publication on CMMC 2.0 and DIB compliance. We may receive compensation for qualified introductions, sponsorships, or partner referrals when disclosed. Compensation does not control our regulatory analysis, provider-category recommendations, or status verification. We have no paid placement or affiliate link to FutureFeed on this page. This guide is educational reporting, not legal, contractual, or compliance advice — confirm your obligations in your contract and flow-down terms and with qualified counsel or your contracting officer. The Defense Compliance Report is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Department of Defense, the CMMC Program Management Office, The Cyber AB, or FutureFeed, except where disclosed.

By The Defense Compliance Report Editorial Team · Published June 9, 2026· Last verified June 9, 2026 · Corrections policy · Methodology