Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 6:55 pm
TL;DR: IGA has moved from a compliance layer to a primary security control because breaches increasingly exploit governance gaps around standing privilege, recertification, and non-human identity lifecycle, according to Avatier's 2026 buyer's guide. The decision now is less about feature breadth than whether an IGA platform can operate as a live control surface across cloud, legacy, and NHI estates.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Avatier: Identity Governance in 2026: 9 Top Platforms Compared
By the numbers:
- More than 60 percent of organizations now manage over 21 disparate identities per user across their stack.
- Only 44 percent of organizations report high confidence in their ability to prevent identity-based security incidents.
- Cloud-native architectures demonstrate 43 percent better elastic scaling during peak demand compared to hybrid approaches.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams choose an IGA platform for mixed cloud and legacy environments?
A: Start with the identities that create the greatest governance risk, not the easiest demos.
A: Because authentication only proves who or what signed in.
Q: How can organisations tell whether their access reviews are actually effective?
A: Effective reviews remove access, not just document opinions.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every identity type by governance owner Assign a named owner to each service account, service principal, contractor identity, and privileged human role.
- Measure entitlement removal latency Track the time between a joiner, mover, leaver, or system-change event and the actual removal of related access.
- Test closed-loop certification on revoked access Run one certification campaign in which at least one entitlement is revoked and verify that the removal propagates into every target application without manual follow-up.
What's in the full article
Avatier's full buyer's guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Vendor-by-vendor comparison of deployment fit, including cloud-only, hybrid, Microsoft-first, and mainframe-heavy environments
- Pricing and packaging notes that matter when shortlisting tools for procurement and implementation planning
- The guide's full honest-trade-off commentary for each platform, which is the part teams usually need before a sales call
- Detailed fit guidance for organisations that need service-desk identity verification, RACF or ACF2 coverage, or deeper SoD handling
👉 Read Avatier's 2026 buyer's guide to nine IGA platforms →
IGA platforms in 2026: what governance gap are teams missing?
Explore further
25/06/2026 3:57 am
IGA is the control surface that decides whether identity state is still true. Authentication tells you who signed in, but IGA tells you whether the access they hold is still justified, owned, and revocable. That distinction becomes operational when cloud estates, contractors, and non-human identities all accumulate permissions faster than humans can review them. The program that cannot answer that question is already behind the breach curve.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams do when IGA coverage does not extend to mainframe or bespoke systems?
A: Treat those systems as the programme's highest-risk exceptions and bridge them deliberately. Build compensating controls around owner assignment, periodic attestation, and deprovisioning evidence until native or connector-based coverage exists. Uncovered systems should never be allowed to sit outside review just because they are harder to integrate.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA platforms in 2026: the governance control surface still missing
