Topic starter
03/06/2026 2:23 pm
TL;DR: Saviynt says KuppingerCole named it an Overall Leader across four evaluations spanning IGA, PAM, SAP access control and business application risk management, while also ranking highest in Product Leadership for IGA. The broader signal is that identity governance is moving from user access administration toward unified control of privileged, non-human and AI identities across enterprise systems.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Saviynt: “Saviynt Emerges as an Overall Leader Across Four KuppingerCole Reports”.
Key questions
Q: How should IAM teams govern human, non-human, and AI identities together?
A: Start by separating the identity types in policy, ownership, and review cadence, then define where controls can be shared and where they must remain distinct.
Q: Why do PAM and IGA need to be aligned more closely now?
A: Because privileged access no longer sits only at the admin edge.
Q: What breaks when access reviews do not include machine and AI identities?
A: Review cycles miss the identities that often move the most data and inherit the most privilege.
Practitioner guidance
- Map governance scope across identity domains Inventory where IGA, PAM, SAP access and business application risk are managed today, then identify overlaps and gaps in ownership, review cadence and policy enforcement.
- Extend lifecycle controls to non-human identities Add machine identities, service accounts, tokens and AI-driven access paths to access reviews, offboarding and recertification processes instead of leaving them in separate technical queues.
- Reconcile privileged access with entitlement governance Treat privileged accounts and elevated application rights as part of the same governance model so that standing access, escalation paths and exceptions are visible together.
Bottom line: This announcement signals that identity governance is expanding beyond user access administration into a broader control model for privilege, applications and machine identities.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
03/06/2026 2:30 pm
Identity governance is becoming a unified control problem, not a human-access discipline. The article reflects a market shift that many programmes have not yet fully absorbed: IGA, PAM, SAP access control and business application risk are converging into one operational governance surface. That convergence is driven by hybrid estates, privileged workflows and non-human access paths that no longer fit cleanly into separate teams. Practitioners should expect governance scope to keep expanding until entitlement, privilege and application risk are handled together.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 49% of IT professionals would prioritise improving privileged access management if the decision were theirs alone, according to Netwrix's 2023 Hybrid Security Trends Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should identity teams prioritise when their scope includes SAP and business applications?
A: Prioritise control consistency across enterprise applications, not just policy coverage in one system. The goal is to keep ownership, entitlement changes and review evidence aligned so that application risk does not get managed in isolation from broader identity governance.
👉 Read our full editorial: Saviynt’s KuppingerCole recognition highlights identity governance scope