TL;DR: Software asset and license management is shifting from inventory control to a governance layer for cost transparency, compliance, and hybrid IT visibility, according to Efecte’s summary of techconsult’s PUR 2026 benchmark. The practical implication is that SAM now has to operate as part of broader IT operations, not as a standalone audit function.
At a glance
What this is: This is Matrix42’s readout of the techconsult PUR 2026 benchmark, showing that users now value software asset management as an operational governance capability rather than a narrow licensing tool.
Why it matters: For IAM, IGA, and adjacent governance teams, the signal is that asset transparency, lifecycle control, and operational integration are becoming baseline expectations across software, identities, and access patterns.
By the numbers:
- Matrix42 was rated a Champion in the Software Asset & License Management category by 3,390 IT professionals in the PUR 2026 benchmark.
- 46 vendors were evaluated in the Software Asset & License Management category, and 29 reached the Diamond tier.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
👉 Read Efecte's PUR 2026 analysis of software asset and license management
Context
Software asset management is no longer just about counting licenses. In hybrid IT environments, the real problem is whether organisations can see software usage, connect it to ownership, and keep that picture current as applications, endpoints, and SaaS subscriptions change.
That shift matters to identity and access governance because visibility problems do not stop at software inventory. When asset records, service ownership, and access entitlements drift apart, recertification, offboarding, and compliance reporting all become less reliable than they appear on paper.
Key questions
Q: How should teams evaluate software asset management beyond license tracking?
A: Teams should evaluate SAM as a governance capability that ties ownership, usage, compliance evidence, and lifecycle actions together. If a platform cannot connect asset records to operational workflows, it may report on licences but still fail to support real control decisions.
Q: Why does hybrid IT make software asset governance harder?
A: Hybrid IT increases the number of systems, contracts, and usage patterns that must stay aligned. SaaS, endpoints, and service platforms change faster than manual processes can track, so fragmented records quickly lose evidentiary value and weaken compliance and accountability.
Q: What breaks when software asset data sits in a silo?
A: A siloed SAM model breaks cross-functional visibility. Teams can lose the link between license status, ownership, support actions, and retirement decisions, which creates delayed remediation, duplicate records, and reporting that looks complete but is not operationally reliable.
Q: Should organisations prioritise SAM integration over standalone reporting?
A: Yes, when the goal is control quality rather than static compliance evidence. Standalone reporting can show what is recorded, but integration determines whether asset changes actually trigger review, remediation, or closure in the day-to-day workflow.
Technical breakdown
Why software asset management is moving into governance
Software asset management used to focus on procurement, license compliance, and audit preparation. In hybrid environments, that is no longer sufficient because software ownership, usage, and entitlement data now change continuously across SaaS, endpoints, and integrated service platforms. The operational question is not just whether a license exists, but whether the organisation can prove who uses it, where, and under what business justification. That makes SAM a governance function with lifecycle dependencies, not a static inventory exercise.
Practical implication: Treat SAM data as governance evidence and connect it to ownership, access review, and offboarding workflows.
What integration changes in practice
The article’s emphasis on a unified platform reflects a broader operational reality: software asset decisions are only useful when they sit next to service management, endpoint management, and automation. Separate tools often produce separate truths, which leads to duplicated records, delayed remediation, and fragmented reporting. When the workflow is integrated, teams can tie a license event to an asset change, a support case, or a retirement action without relying on manual reconciliation. That is where governance becomes executable rather than descriptive.
Practical implication: Map SAM events into connected operational workflows so asset changes can trigger review, remediation, or closure steps.
Why user ratings now matter to programme design
PUR-style user ratings are relevant because they expose whether a platform is workable in daily operations, not just whether it looks good in a procurement cycle. For governance leaders, that matters because adoption and control quality depend on usability, partner support, and the ability to operationalise policy at scale. In practice, teams should interpret user sentiment as a signal about execution risk: if users struggle with the platform, control consistency usually suffers too.
Practical implication: Use user-rated operational fit as a selection criterion when evaluating governance tooling and platform consolidation options.
NHI Mgmt Group analysis
Software asset management is becoming a governance control, not a back-office record-keeping function. The article reflects a broader market shift in which software visibility, compliance, and cost control are being treated as operational governance outcomes. That matters because the same control logic increasingly applies across software, identities, and access entitlements. Practitioners should stop treating SAM as a periodic audit task and start treating it as part of the control plane.
Hybrid IT makes fragmented asset data structurally unreliable. The more software spans SaaS, endpoints, and integrated service layers, the less useful isolated records become. A license count without ownership, usage, and lifecycle context cannot support defensible decisions. The implication is that governance programmes need a connected operational model, not just better spreadsheets.
Platform integration is now a control quality issue. When software asset management works alongside service management, endpoint management, and automation, the organisation can link policy to execution instead of relying on manual follow-up. That reduces the gap between declared compliance and actual control performance. Practitioners should evaluate tooling on its ability to create enforceable workflow continuity.
Vendor benchmark scores are increasingly proxy signals for operational maturity. A Champion rating in a user benchmark is not proof of governance excellence, but it does indicate that practitioners value platforms that work in daily operations. In a category like SAM, that often correlates with lower friction in license reconciliation, reporting, and control maintenance. Security and IT leaders should read these ratings as a clue about implementation realism.
Resource visibility is the shared problem across software and identity governance. The same organisational weakness that leaves software assets poorly governed also leaves service accounts and other non-human identities under-monitored. Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to NHI Mgmt Group research. The practical conclusion is that governance programmes should align asset control, identity control, and lifecycle control rather than treating them as separate disciplines.
From our research:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- From our research: 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- For the lifecycle angle, NHI Lifecycle Management Guide is the next step for tying visibility to provisioning, rotation, and offboarding.
What this signals
Software governance is converging with identity governance because both now depend on trustworthy inventory, ownership, and lifecycle state. When organisations cannot maintain that state for software assets, they usually struggle just as much with service accounts, credentials, and other non-human identities.
Control continuity: the real differentiator is no longer whether a platform can report on assets, but whether it can carry policy through the full operational lifecycle. That is why integrated workflows matter more than isolated dashboards, especially where compliance and remediation need to happen in the same motion.
The practical signal for practitioners is that tool selection should be judged by how well it supports connected control evidence. If the workflow still depends on manual reconciliation between asset records and operational systems, the organisation will keep inheriting the same governance drift under a different product name.
For practitioners
- Reframe SAM as a governance control Define software asset management outcomes in terms of ownership, compliance evidence, and operational accountability, not just licence inventory. Use the control as part of review, audit, and remediation workflows rather than as a separate reporting function.
- Connect SAM records to lifecycle workflows Link asset ownership to joiner-mover-leaver processes, offboarding actions, and service ownership changes so records stay current as software and teams change. This reduces the lag between a change in reality and a change in the control record.
- Test platform integration before you standardise Validate whether the SAM tool can exchange data with service management, endpoint management, and automation layers without manual reconciliation. If the workflow still depends on spreadsheet handoffs, the governance model remains brittle.
- Use user feedback as an implementation signal Look past feature lists and examine whether practitioners report stable day-to-day operation, usable reporting, and practical partner support. In governance tooling, poor operational fit usually shows up later as inconsistent control execution.
Key takeaways
- Software asset management is being judged as a governance discipline, not just a licensing utility.
- Hybrid IT and SaaS sprawl make disconnected asset records less reliable for compliance and accountability.
- Practitioners should prioritise integrated workflows that turn asset changes into enforceable control actions.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST CSF 2.0, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CIS Controls v8 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AC-4 — Access Permissions and Authorisations | SAM governance depends on knowing who and what is authorised across connected environments. |
| GV.RM-01 — Risk Management Strategy | The post frames SAM as part of a broader governance and risk strategy. | |
| Recommendation — Map software asset ownership to PR.AC-4 and keep entitlement evidence aligned with operational records. Include software asset governance in risk strategy so compliance, cost, and lifecycle decisions stay connected. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | AC-6 — Least Privilege | Asset control and entitlement control intersect when software access outlives business need. |
| AU-6 — Audit Review, Analysis, and Reporting | The article’s emphasis on transparency and evidence aligns with operational auditability. | |
| Recommendation — Apply AC-6 to remove unnecessary software access paths when assets, roles, or usage change. Use AU-6 to validate that software asset reports support real review and exception handling. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-5 — Account Management | Account lifecycle discipline supports control over software access and related operational records. |
| Recommendation — Use CIS-5 to maintain accurate account ownership and revoke obsolete access as part of asset governance. | ||
Key terms
- Software Asset Management: Software asset management is the process of tracking, optimising, and governing software usage, licences, and contracts across an organisation. In modern SaaS environments, it increasingly depends on identity data because software value and software risk are both defined by who or what can use the application.
- Solution Rating: Solution Rating is a measure of how well a platform performs in day-to-day use. It typically reflects usability, feature fit, product value and user loyalty, which makes it useful for understanding whether a tool works operationally rather than only on paper.
- Company Rating: Company rating measures how users perceive the vendor’s innovation capability, support, partner network, and broader portfolio. It matters because governance tools fail less often from missing features than from weak implementation support and poor operational fit.
- Hybrid IT: Hybrid IT is an operating model that combines on premises systems with cloud services and connected enterprise applications. It creates a broader identity surface because users, service accounts, and privileged roles can span multiple environments, each with different control expectations, approval paths, and audit requirements.
What's in the full article
Efecte's full article covers the market and benchmark detail this post intentionally leaves at the governance level:
- The PUR benchmark scoring model across company rating and solution rating, including how users separated innovation from product performance.
- The category breakdown that shows how 46 vendors were evaluated and how 29 reached Diamond status.
- The analyst commentary on why integrated platform approaches matter in daily IT operations.
- The customer-facing examples and webcast context that explain how users interpret SAM value in practice.
Deepen your knowledge
NHI governance, agentic AI identity, and machine identity lifecycle are core topics in our NHI Foundation Level course, the industry's only accredited NHI security programme. If you are building or maturing an IAM programme, it is worth exploring.
Published by the NHIMG editorial team on September 11, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org
