Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:27 am
TL;DR: As cloud adoption and SaaS sprawl multiply identities and access paths, legacy spreadsheets and static tools struggle to keep pace, while modern IGA platforms automate provisioning, certification, and compliance workflows across hybrid environments, according to SecurEnds. The real shift is not just automation, but governance that keeps access aligned to policy as the identity estate expands.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by SecurEnds: Best Identity Governance and Administration Solutions in 2026
By the numbers:
- Organizations using automated IGA experience 40 to 60% faster audit cycles.
- Companies implementing IGA report 30% lower operational overhead in identity management processes.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations govern non-human identities inside IGA programmes?
A: Treat non-human identities as governed identities with owners, purposes, expiry paths, and review cycles.
Q: When does IGA stop being effective for access reviews?
A: IGA becomes weak when review cadence is slower than identity change.
Q: What breaks when service account offboarding is not part of IGA?
A: Orphaned access persists after the original project, system, or owner changes.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory human and non-human access together Build one entitlement inventory that includes users, service accounts, API keys, bots, and cloud app access.
- Automate certification by risk tier Set shorter review cycles for privileged, third-party, and non-human access, and longer cycles only for low-risk entitlements.
- Tie offboarding to deprovisioning evidence Require every joiner-mover-leaver workflow to produce a revocation record for accounts, tokens, and application roles.
What's in the full article
SecurEnds' full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The vendor-by-vendor comparison table for the 13 IGA tools discussed in the article.
- Feature-level notes on AI-driven access reviews, low-code workflows, and hybrid deployment support.
- The article's pricing, customer rating, and positioning details for each platform.
- The specific product descriptions and pros-and-cons used in the original 2026 comparison.
👉 Read SecurEnds' 2026 comparison of leading IGA solutions →
IGA solutions in 2026: where legacy access governance falls short?
Explore further
25/06/2026 9:21 am
Modern IGA is now an NHI governance control, not just a human access review process. The article correctly points to SaaS sprawl, API access, and machine identities as the pressure points that expose legacy governance gaps. Once service accounts and tokens sit beside human users in the same entitlement estate, identity governance stops being a back-office workflow and becomes a control plane for the full identity lifecycle. Practitioners should treat IGA scope as cross-actor by default.
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 shows why entitlement inventories are still incomplete in many environments.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when access governance fails across hybrid environments?
A: Accountability sits with the business owner of the entitlement, the IAM or IGA team that administers the control, and the application owner that approves or inherits access. Hybrid environments do not remove accountability, they make it easier to hide. Clear ownership and auditable evidence are what keep governance defensible.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA solutions in 2026 expose the limits of legacy access reviews
