Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
09/06/2026 11:45 pm
TL;DR: IAM tools centralise authentication, SSO, MFA, provisioning and audit trails, but Zluri’s comparison of 13 platforms argues that the harder problem is post-authentication governance across apps, approvals and offboarding. The real decision is whether a tool governs the full lifecycle and entitlement depth, or only the front door.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance Top 13 Identity and Access Management Tools in 2026
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams evaluate IAM tools beyond sign-in and MFA?
A: Security teams should test whether the platform can enforce approvals, entitlement changes, and revocation after authentication, not just verify entry.
Q: Why do IAM tools fail to reduce access risk when lifecycle coverage is weak?
A: They fail because access risk is usually created by what persists after onboarding, not by the login event itself.
Q: What should organisations measure to know if IAM governance is actually working?
A: They should measure whether privileged entitlements are visible, whether dormant access is removed, and whether review outcomes result in real revocation.
Practitioner guidance
- Audit post-authentication coverage first Map which platforms only handle sign-in and which can enforce approvals, entitlement changes and revocation after authentication.
- Require entitlement-level reporting Ask for reporting that distinguishes admin rights, delegated access, inherited permissions and dormant entitlements.
- Test lifecycle enforcement across identity types Validate that onboarding, mover events, rotation and offboarding work for employees, service accounts and AI-linked access paths, not just human users.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the product-specific evaluation detail this post intentionally leaves out:
- Side-by-side tool descriptions for 13 IAM platforms, useful when narrowing a shortlist.
- Feature-by-feature coverage of authentication, SSO, MFA and governance capabilities.
- Vendor-specific positioning on access reviews, provisioning and deprovisioning workflows.
- Category guidance for teams comparing broad IAM tools against deeper IGA requirements.
👉 Read Zluri's comparison of the top 13 IAM tools for 2026 →
IAM tools in 2026: are they enough for governance and access reviews?
Explore further
10/06/2026 2:14 am
IAM tooling still too often solves authentication first and governance second. That ordering is backwards for today’s identity risk profile. The market has spent years optimising sign-in, yet most serious access failures now come from what happens after entry, especially stale privilege, incomplete offboarding and missing entitlement context. Practitioners should treat post-authentication governance as the real selection criterion, not a secondary feature.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- That same research found that 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, with 38% reporting no or low visibility.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between authentication control and access governance in IAM?
A: Authentication control answers whether an identity is allowed to enter. Access governance answers what that identity can do once inside, how long it should keep that access, and how access is removed when business need changes. Organisations need both, but governance determines whether identity risk shrinks or simply becomes better logged.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity and access management tools still leave governance gaps
