Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:20 pm
TL;DR: Selecting an identity-management platform compounds for years because lifecycle, access, compliance evidence, and authentication decisions become embedded in the operating model, according to Avatier's 2026 evaluation framework. The real differentiator is whether a vendor can handle mover complexity, verification architecture, and scale without forcing years of remediation later.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Avatier: Identity management vendor evaluation in 2026
By the numbers:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams evaluate identity lifecycle automation in vendor demos?
A: They should test real lifecycle transitions, not just onboarding.
Q: Why do mover workflows matter more than joiner or leaver flows?
A: Mover workflows matter because they cross privilege boundaries without a clean start or stop.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about identity recovery and reset flows?
A: They often treat recovery as a convenience feature instead of a control point.
Practitioner guidance
- Script mover scenarios, not just joiner and leaver tests Use contractor conversion, leave of absence, role change, and termination scenarios to see whether entitlements, approvals, and logs remain consistent across the full lifecycle.
- Test recovery flows for privileged accounts Walk through password reset, MFA recovery, and escalation handling for high-risk users, then verify that failed checks stop the process instead of silently bypassing it.
- Validate connector maintenance before procurement Ask how SCIM, API, and webhook integrations are updated when target applications change their schemas or authentication models, and confirm that updates are operationally maintained.
What's in the full article
Avatier's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The vendor's weighted scoring approach for comparing identity management platforms across 12 criteria
- Detailed demo scripts for joiner, mover, leaver, and recovery scenarios that procurement teams can reuse
- Implementation sequencing guidance for RFI, proof of concept, reference checks, and contract negotiation
- Vendor-specific commentary on where an integrated identity platform fits better than stitched-together components
👉 Read Avatier's framework for evaluating identity management vendors in 2026 →
Identity management vendor selection in 2026: are your criteria realistic?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:48 pm
Identity platform selection is now an identity governance decision, not a UI decision. The article correctly frames vendor choice as a multi-year operating model commitment because lifecycle automation, authentication, certification, and integration become structural dependencies. In NHI and human IAM programmes alike, the platform defines what evidence exists, how quickly access changes propagate, and whether operational exceptions can be governed rather than improvised. Practitioners should treat selection criteria as control architecture, not feature comparison.
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 programmes are still operating with incomplete machine-identity inventory.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when identity platform decisions create audit gaps?
A: Accountability sits with the organisation that owns the identity control plane, not the vendor. Security, IAM, compliance, and infrastructure teams all share responsibility for design choices, but leadership must ensure that evidence, approvals, and lifecycle changes are governed consistently. Frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 help make that ownership explicit.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity management vendor evaluation in 2026: what matters most
