Topic starter
24/06/2026 7:01 pm
TL;DR: Many organisations still benchmark without a clear identity governance baseline, according to Netwrix, and the vendor’s page is a landing experience around a security maturity assessment, but the only substantive signal is that many organisations still benchmark without a clear identity governance baseline. For IAM teams, the gap is not assessment volume, but whether the programme can translate scoring into control ownership and remediation.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Netwrix: “GPOs einheitlich und zentral verwalten mit PolicyPak”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams use an IAM maturity assessment in practice?
A: They should use it to find where identity governance is fragmented, not to produce a vanity score.
Q: Why do generic maturity scores fail identity governance programmes?
A: They often flatten distinct control domains into one score, which hides where the real exposure sits.
Practitioner guidance
- Define an identity governance baseline first Inventory human accounts, privileged accounts, service accounts, and other non-human identities before using any maturity benchmark.
- Split benchmark results by control domain Separate IAM, PAM, and NHI findings instead of collapsing them into one overall maturity score.
- Attach each gap to a named owner Require every benchmark finding to include a control owner, a remediation target, and a closure date.
Bottom line: Generic maturity benchmarking can mislead identity teams if it is not anchored to actual control evidence and ownership.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 4:06 am
Security maturity is only credible when it is anchored to identity control evidence. Broad benchmarking can be useful for executive framing, but it becomes misleading when it is detached from the controls that actually reduce access risk. In practice, IAM, PAM, and NHI programmes need evidence chains, not just scores. The practitioner conclusion is simple: measure the control estate first, then compare maturity.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams do when a maturity assessment reveals control gaps?
A: Assign each gap to a named control owner, define the target state, and put it into a closure workflow. The purpose of assessment is to create accountable remediation. If the finding does not change ownership or drive a fix, the benchmark has not improved governance.
👉 Read our full editorial: Security maturity benchmarks show the limits of generic assessment
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group