Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:20 pm
TL;DR: Selecting an identity management vendor in 2026 compounds for years because the platform shapes lifecycle automation, authentication, governance evidence, and integration scope, according to Avatier’s evaluation framework. The real risk is not feature count but whether mover flows, recovery paths, certification scope, and implementation reality match enterprise complexity.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Avatier: identity management vendor evaluation framework for 2026
By the numbers:
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations test identity vendor platforms before buying them?
A: Use scripted scenarios that reflect real operational change, not marketing demos.
Q: Why do mover workflows matter so much in identity governance?
A: Mover workflows expose whether a platform can preserve policy intent while access changes across roles, contractors, leaves, and rehires.
Q: How can security teams tell whether certification automation is actually improving governance?
A: Look for a smaller, more relevant review set and better disposition quality, not just more completed campaigns.
Practitioner guidance
- Stress-test the mover workflow Run contractor conversion, leave-of-absence, and role-reversal scenarios against the platform with real entitlements and confirm that access changes propagate cleanly across downstream systems.
- Inspect recovery and fallback paths Demonstrate failed verification for a privileged account and verify the escalation path, log detail, and revocation behaviour before the session can be reused.
- Measure certification scope reduction Compare total review volume against risk-based review volume and reject platforms that only automate the same campaign at larger scale.
What's in the full article
Avatier's full buyer's guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Scripted demo prompts for each evaluation criterion, including the exact wording Avatier recommends
- The full weighted scoring and phased selection process for shortlisting vendors
- Specific operational trade-offs across IGA, ILM, MFA, passwordless, and AI-assisted review
- Implementation and reference-check questions that help teams compare finalists consistently
👉 Read Avatier's identity management vendor evaluation framework for 2026 →
Identity management vendor criteria in 2026: what should teams test?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:48 pm
Identity vendor selection is now an identity governance decision, not a feature comparison. The article is strongest when it shows how lifecycle automation, authentication, certification, and integration choices shape the security operating model for years. That is exactly where human IAM, NHI governance, and adjacent control planes converge. Practitioners should treat shortlist decisions as durable governance architecture choices, not procurement exercises.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which means most identity programmes still lack the inventory needed for reliable governance.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams check in authentication recovery flows?
A: Teams should verify what happens when primary verification fails, how privileged accounts are re-established, whether fallback paths are stronger than the initial login, and how the platform records each step. Weak recovery is a common place where strong authentication programmes quietly fail.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity management vendor evaluation in 2026: what matters most
