Topic starter
12/06/2026 12:17 am
TL;DR: Legacy IGA still persists in nearly 40% of organisations, while automated modern IGA can cut access-review errors and cycle time by 40%, according to Zluri’s analysis. The governance question is no longer whether IGA exists, but whether it can keep pace with cloud-first identity sprawl and continuous access change.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Legacy vs Modern vs Next-Gen IGA: What’s Right For You”.
By the numbers:
- Nearly 40% of organisations still rely on legacy IGA solutions, according to Zluri.
- Automated modern IGA can reduce error rates by 40% on average, according to Zluri.
- Automated modern IGA can cut the time spent on access reviews by 40%, taking just 4 days to complete a review cycle, according to Zluri.
Key questions
Q: Where does legacy IGA fail in cloud-first environments?
A: Legacy IGA fails when identity, application, and access data stop behaving like a stable set of records.
Q: When should automation be used in identity governance workflows?
A: Use automation when the decision is repetitive, threshold-driven, and well understood, such as notifying managers, initiating mini-reviews, or disabling clearly risky access.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about simplified IGA tools?
A: They often assume lower deployment friction automatically means sufficient governance.
Practitioner guidance
- Assess identity data freshness Map where access data is still collected manually or stored in disconnected systems, then identify the points where governance decisions are already operating on stale information.
- Reduce manual review handling Replace spreadsheet-driven access reviews with automated collection and remediation paths that shorten the time between review initiation and entitlement correction.
- Test integration depth before migration Check whether the IGA platform can integrate with cloud apps, directory services, and legacy systems without custom coding for every connector.
Bottom line: Legacy IGA struggles because it was built for a static environment that no longer exists, especially in cloud-first identity programmes.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
12/06/2026 9:27 am
Legacy IGA is now a control mismatch, not just a technical debt problem: The article shows that manual governance patterns were designed for slower, more static identity estates. That assumption breaks when identities, apps, and access change continuously across cloud and hybrid environments, so the issue becomes control relevance rather than platform age. Practitioners should read legacy IGA as a model that no longer matches the operating environment.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams decide between legacy, modern, and next-gen IGA?
A: Teams should choose based on the pace and complexity of their identity estate, not on feature labels alone. If the environment depends on frequent change, hybrid connectivity, and precise policy execution, the deciding factor is whether the platform can govern continuously rather than periodically.
👉 Read our full editorial: Legacy to next-gen IGA: what changes for identity governance
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group