Topic starter
11/07/2026 2:03 pm
TL;DR: IAM, IGA and PAM are often discussed together, but they solve different governance problems: authentication and access control, lifecycle certification, and privileged oversight, according to Soffid. The practical issue is not naming the acronyms correctly, but avoiding a programme design that treats access, governance, and elevation as the same control surface.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Soffid: “What Is IAM? IAM vs IGA vs PAM Explained”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when organisations treat IGA and PAM as the same control?
A: They lose sight of two different risks at once.
Q: Why does privileged access need separate governance from ordinary app access?
A: Privileged access carries a larger blast radius, so the review and revocation threshold must be stricter than for standard application access.
Q: How should security teams measure whether IGA is reducing risk?
A: Measure whether access is becoming safer, faster, and less manual.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate IAM, IGA and PAM ownership Assign distinct process owners for authentication and access, lifecycle certification, and privileged oversight so each control has clear evidence and escalation paths.
- Review privileged access as a separate population Create a dedicated review cycle for administrative users and service accounts instead of folding them into standard user recertification.
- Automate recertification on role and lifecycle change Trigger access certification when roles change, contracts end, or accounts are modified so standing access does not persist by default.
Bottom line: IAM, IGA and PAM are distinct control layers, and treating them as one programme blurs accountability for access, certification and privilege.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
11/07/2026 2:12 pm
Identity governance fails when access, lifecycle and elevation are treated as one control plane: the article is right to separate IAM, IGA and PAM because each answers a different governance question. IAM is about access verification, IGA is about whether access should continue, and PAM is about what happens when access becomes high-risk. Practitioners should use that separation to avoid audit blind spots and control overlap.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between access control and access accountability in PAM?
A: Access control decides whether an identity may connect to a protected system, while access accountability proves what the identity did after connection. PAM programmes need both. A system can be tightly authorised and still be ungovernable if it cannot produce session-level evidence, identity context, and retained records for review.
👉 Read our full editorial: IAM, IGA and PAM: where identity governance meets privileged access