Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:21 pm
TL;DR: Selecting an identity-management vendor compounds for years because lifecycle, authentication, governance, and compliance choices shape the operating model as much as the toolset, according to Avatier’s evaluation framework. The real test is whether teams can expose mover-flow complexity, recovery weaknesses, and integration limits before they become migration friction.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Avatier: The evaluation framework for choosing an identity management vendor for 2026
By the numbers:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities - 46% confirmed, 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams evaluate identity vendors for lifecycle automation?
A: Security teams should test joiner, mover, and leaver workflows against real HR and role-change scenarios, not just basic provisioning.
Q: Why do recovery flows matter as much as primary MFA?
A: Recovery flows matter because attackers often target the exception path when primary authentication is protected well.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about access certification?
A: They often treat certification as a campaign to complete instead of a control to narrow risk.
Practitioner guidance
- Script mover-flow demos with real role changes Use contractor-to-employee, leave-of-absence, return-to-work, and termination scenarios to test whether the platform updates access, approvals, and evidence without manual cleanup.
- Challenge the recovery workflow, not just MFA marketing Walk through a privileged-account recovery event from failure to reauthentication to audit logging.
- Measure whether certification campaigns shrink scope meaningfully Ask the vendor to demonstrate risk-based scoping on a real application set and show the difference between total entitlement population and the actual review set.
What's in the full article
Avatier's full guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The complete 12-criterion evaluation framework with demo prompts for each category, including lifecycle, authentication, governance, scale, and compliance.
- The vendor's own buyer-guide context for IGA, ILM, MFA, and passwordless decisions, which helps teams compare the framework against specific shortlist choices.
- The full set of trade-offs and implementation realities that only surface when you are moving from evaluation into deployment planning.
- The article's detailed scoring and procurement sequence, including how to structure demos, POCs, and reference checks before final vendor selection.
👉 Read Avatier's identity vendor evaluation framework for 2026 →
Identity vendor evaluation in 2026: are your criteria complete?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:50 pm
Vendor evaluation is ultimately a test of whether the identity platform can absorb operational change without creating governance debt. A vendor that looks strong on paper can still fail where role changes, recovery flows, and evidence generation intersect. The issue is not feature count, but whether the control model survives real enterprise turbulence. Practitioners should evaluate the operating model, not the slide deck.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 88.5% of organisations acknowledge that their non-human IAM practices lag behind or are merely on par with their human identity and access management efforts, according to The 2024 Non-Human Identity Security Report.
- Only 19.6% of security professionals express strong confidence in their organisation's ability to securely manage non-human workload identities, which shows the maturity gap is not theoretical.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations decide whether an identity platform supports NHI governance well enough?
A: They should check whether lifecycle, provisioning, and evidence handling apply to service accounts, API keys, tokens, and workload identities, not just humans. NHI governance fails when the platform only models workforce access. A useful evaluation asks whether non-human identities can be reviewed, rotated, offboarded, and audited with the same discipline as people.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity vendor evaluation in 2026: the criteria that matter
