Topic starter
17/05/2026 9:21 am
TL;DR: A UserEvidence study of more than 200 Delinea Platform customers reports about $2.2M in average annual ROI, $2.1M in incident-prevention savings, and 2,236 hours saved per year, framing platform expansion as an operational and governance question rather than a pure migration story, according to Delinea. The hard issue for NHI teams is whether those gains come from better control design or simply from tool consolidation.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Delinea: “Delinea Platform ROI Webinar”.
By the numbers:
- Delinea says the study covered more than 200 Delinea Platform customers.
Key questions
Q: How should teams evaluate ROI claims for NHI and privileged access platforms?
A: Treat ROI as a starting hypothesis, not proof.
Q: Why do incident-prevention savings matter in NHI programmes?
A: They matter because they indicate whether the platform reduced the chance that exposed, overprivileged, or long-lived credentials could be abused.
Practitioner guidance
- Map ROI claims to NHI control outcomes Tie labour savings, incident-prevention savings, and visibility improvements to specific controls such as secret rotation, access scope reduction, and offboarding coverage before accepting the business case.
- Validate whether consolidation changed governance depth Check whether the platform changed how identities are issued, reviewed, and retired, or merely reduced the number of tools your team has to administer.
- Review third-party access paths separately Audit supplier-connected accounts, integrations, and delegated credentials on their own lifecycle, because vendor and partner access often behaves differently from internal NHI estates.
Bottom line: The article is really about whether platform expansion changes NHI governance, not just whether it lowers operating costs.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 2 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
17/05/2026 9:22 am
ROI is not the same as governance value: A platform can reduce labour and still leave the identity model unchanged. For NHI teams, the important question is whether the reported savings came from better issuance, tighter scope, and cleaner offboarding, or simply from moving work into one console. If the control model does not change, the security outcome may not change either. Practitioners should tie ROI claims to lifecycle control outcomes, not to procurement narratives.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 92% of organisations expose NHIs to third parties, raising concerns about supply chain security, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations evaluate third-party access separately from internal NHI controls?
A: Yes. Third-party access has its own ownership, revocation, and offboarding requirements, and those paths often persist longer than internal accounts. Evaluating them separately exposes where supplier-connected credentials expand the attack surface and where governance breaks down at handoff points.
👉 Read our full editorial: Delinea Platform webinar: what customer ROI data means for NHI control
This post was modified 2 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group