Topic starter
04/07/2026 10:15 pm
TL;DR: IGA platform selection is shifting beyond access reviews, provisioning, and SoD as enterprise identity risk spans SAP, Oracle, Workday, Salesforce, and other business applications, according to Pathlock’s webinar briefing. The practical question is no longer feature parity, but whether governance tooling can evaluate risk across business-critical applications and support a broader control model.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Pathlock: “Evaluating an IGA Platform: A Framework Built on 100+ Enterprise Implementations”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams evaluate an IGA platform when identity risk spans enterprise applications?
A: Teams should evaluate whether the platform can govern access, roles, SoD, and evidence consistently across the full application estate, not just in one system.
Q: What breaks when IGA evaluation focuses only on access reviews and provisioning?
A: The evaluation misses where risk accumulates across applications, so governance looks complete on paper while entitlements, SoD conflicts, and audit evidence remain fragmented.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the enterprise application scope first List the systems that actually carry business identity risk, including ERP and SaaS platforms, before scoring any IGA product.
- Test cross-application SoD enforcement Validate whether SoD rules and exception handling remain consistent when the same entitlement logic spans SAP, Oracle, Workday, Salesforce, and related platforms.
- Measure governance evidence quality Check whether the platform can produce defensible audit evidence for approvals, recertifications, and entitlement changes across all in-scope applications.
Bottom line: Modern IGA evaluation has moved beyond access reviews, provisioning, and SoD because enterprise identity risk now spans the core business application estate.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
04/07/2026 10:18 pm
IGA evaluation is now an enterprise identity risk exercise, not a workflow comparison. Once governance spans SAP, Oracle, Workday, Salesforce, and other business applications, the old question of who has an access review button is too narrow. The real question is whether the programme can express risk consistently across business-critical systems and preserve evidence when controls cross application boundaries.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between classic IGA and modern enterprise identity risk governance?
A: Classic IGA focuses on access reviews, provisioning, and segregation of duties inside a narrower control model. Modern enterprise identity risk governance extends those controls across the application estate, so the platform must manage risk, evidence, and policy consistency where business systems intersect.
👉 Read our full editorial: Evaluating modern IGA platforms for enterprise identity risk