// Capability Statement — Download PDF
Insights / A&A Tooling
A&A Tooling

eMASS vs XACTA, from people who live in both.

The two workhorse assessment-and-authorization platforms compared practically — where each fits, where teams struggle, and the habits that keep either one clean.

Every A&A shop lives in one of two systems of record: eMASS (Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service, the DoD workhorse) or XACTA (Telos's platform, common across the IC and some civilian agencies). Programs rarely choose — the agency chooses for you. What you control is how cleanly you run the one you're handed.

eMASSXACTA
Where you'll meet itDoD components, DISA-aligned programsIC elements, some fed-civ agencies
StrengthsDeep DoD workflow fit, inheritance, STIG/ACAS ingest pathsFlexible workflows, 360 continuous views, IC process fit
Where teams struggleData hygiene at scale; stale artifacts; asset sprawlWorkflow sprawl; configuration debt; report tuning
The constantBoth are only as good as the control statements and evidence you feed them.

Running either one clean

One source of truth. The tracker isn't eMASS *and* a spreadsheet — pick the system of record and kill the shadow copies, or reconciliation eats your ISSO's week, every week.

Inheritance first. Map common control providers before writing a single statement; half your package may already exist upstream. Both platforms support it; most programs underuse it.

Feed them automatically. Scanner results, asset data, and evidence should arrive by integration, not upload button. That's frequently a platform-engineering job — ServiceNow-to-A&A pipelines are a pattern we build repeatedly.

Write for the assessor. No tool rescues a weak implementation statement. Statement libraries, reviewed and reused, are the highest-leverage artifact in either system.

Put this to work

Need it done, not just explained?

This is the work we do every day. Tell us where your program stands and we'll give you a straight answer.

Talk to Ausper