Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/06/2026 10:36 pm
TL;DR: Compliance automation tools can streamline evidence collection and audit readiness, but Zluri’s comparison of Vanta alternatives shows that access reviews, third-party risk management, and broader security visibility still remain weak spots in many programmes. The real issue is that compliance-first tooling can leave governance gaps untouched, especially where identity and permissions change faster than review cycles.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance Top 10 Vanta Alternatives & Competitors [2026 Updated]
By the numbers:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, with 46% confirmed and 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams reduce identity risk in compliance automation programmes?
A: Security teams should separate proof of control from enforcement of control.
Q: Why do Vanta-style compliance tools leave access governance gaps?
A: They are optimised to track audit evidence, not to continuously govern who or what still has access.
Q: What breaks when third-party access is not reviewed continuously?
A: The break is that access stays active long after the business relationship, vendor task, or application purpose has changed.
Practitioner guidance
- Split compliance evidence from entitlement control Map which workflows prove control existence and which workflows actually remove or constrain access.
- Inventory all third-party OAuth connections Create a complete list of connected applications, the permissions they hold, and the business owner responsible for each connection.
- Move from annual certification to continuous review Use automated signals to flag permission drift between review cycles, then revoke or re-scope access before the next formal audit window.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the platform-by-platform comparison details this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Feature-by-feature comparison of Vanta alternatives across compliance automation, access review, and SaaS visibility
- Vendor-specific pros and cons, including implementation and reporting trade-offs that matter during tool selection
- Ratings and product positioning details that help teams compare options during procurement
- Platform descriptions for each alternative so buyers can match capabilities to their compliance workflow
👉 Read Zluri's comparison of Vanta alternatives for compliance and access governance →
Compliance automation gaps: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
12/06/2026 6:50 am
Compliance-first tooling leaves the hardest identity problems untouched. The article’s core tension is not feature breadth, but control depth. Evidence collection, framework mapping, and audit preparation are useful only when they are paired with live entitlement governance. Practitioners should treat compliance automation as a supporting layer, not the identity control plane.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- A separate finding from the same research shows that only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, which helps explain why visibility gaps persist.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do IAM and compliance teams decide whether to buy point tools or broader governance platforms?
A: They should decide based on whether the gap is evidence collection or access control. If the organisation already has audit workflows but still struggles with owner assignment, entitlement visibility, and remediation, then broader governance capability matters more than another compliance checklist. The buying question should start with control outcomes, not report volume.
👉 Read our full editorial: Vanta alternatives expose the limits of compliance-only governance
