Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
14/05/2026 5:37 pm
TL;DR: Saviynt says customers achieve 269% ROI, with payback in under nine months, $29.5M in total benefits, and 577,000 hours saved by automating joiner, mover, leaver workflows and access reviews across human, non-human, and AI identities. The real lesson is that ROI now depends on reducing identity blind spots, not just speeding provisioning.
NHIMG editorial — what this means for NHI practitioners
By the numbers:
- Saviynt customers achieve 269% ROI with payback in under nine months, according to The Total Value & Impact of the Saviynt Identity Platform report.
- The platform delivers $29.5M in total benefits and $18.3M in net present value over three years.
- Revoking 1,954 overprovisioned licenses cuts direct software spend and reduces standing access risk.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations measure identity security ROI beyond license savings?
A: Measure ROI across four outcomes: faster provisioning and removal, shorter access review cycles, fewer overprovisioned entitlements, and lower audit effort.
Q: Why do non-human identities change the identity security business case?
A: Non-human identities expand the business case because they create access at machine speed and often persist outside HR-driven lifecycle controls.
Q: What is the difference between IGA ROI and broader identity security ROI?
A: IGA ROI usually focuses on provisioning and certification efficiency for human users.
Practitioner guidance
- Quantify identity ROI by control outcomes Measure payback against access removal time, certification cycle duration, and the number of overprovisioned entitlements eliminated across humans and NHIs.
- Inventory non-human and AI credentials separately Build a distinct inventory for service accounts, API keys, tokens, certificates, and agent credentials so they do not hide inside human identity reporting.
- Unify certification across identity classes Require the same access review logic for human users, workloads, and AI agents, with explicit revocation paths when business need changes.
That is a programme-level signal, not a tooling feature, and it pushes teams toward control design that includes Ultimate Guide to NHIs and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0?
👉 Read Saviynt's report on identity security ROI across human and AI identities →
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
14/05/2026 5:40 pm
Identity security ROI is now a governance question, not a tooling question. The report frames value in dollars and hours, but the underlying driver is control over who or what can still act in the environment. When NHIs and AI agents are included, the measure of success becomes access reduction, revocation speed, and visibility, not just workflow automation. Practitioners should treat ROI claims as evidence of governance maturity, not proof that identity risk has been solved.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which means most identity programs still cannot see the full NHI population they are trying to govern.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can teams avoid identity blind spots when consolidating tools?
A: Start by mapping where identity data, approvals, and revocations live today, then unify the records that control access decisions. Consolidation only helps if it improves visibility into every identity class and keeps certification and revocation consistent. Otherwise, the organisation simply moves blind spots into a different interface.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security ROI now depends on governing human and AI identities
This post was modified 3 weeks ago by Mr NHI
