Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
11/06/2026 10:38 pm
TL;DR: RSA alternatives are less about replacing one login tool than about whether an IAM stack can automate joiner-mover-leaver workflows, access certification, SSO, and deprovisioning across cloud and on-premises systems, according to Zluri. The real test is whether the platform reduces manual access handling without creating reporting, integration, or lifecycle blind spots.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Security & Compliance Top 7 RSA Alternatives 2026
By the numbers:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, with 46% confirmed and 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should IAM teams evaluate RSA alternatives for enterprise use?
A: Start with governance depth, not interface polish.
Q: Why do lifecycle workflows matter more than simple access requests?
A: Because most access risk appears after the first grant.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about centralised identity platforms?
A: They often treat centralisation as the same thing as control.
Practitioner guidance
- Separate authentication from governance in your shortlist Score each candidate independently for SSO, MFA, access certification, deprovisioning, and reporting rather than treating them as one identity feature bundle.
- Test mover and leaver workflows against real edge cases Use role changes, department transfers, and same-day exits to see whether access is removed cleanly across all connected systems, including SaaS and on-premises apps.
- Demand evidence output before rollout Require audit-ready logs, entitlement history, and access request status visibility so security and compliance teams can prove control performance without manual reconstruction.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Per-tool comparison notes on implementation complexity, reporting depth, and connector coverage.
- Vendor-specific pros and cons for onboarding, offboarding, and access request workflows.
- Customer rating context that helps you compare market perception with governance capability.
- Product-level examples of how each platform handles group-based access, SSO, and revocation.
👉 Read Zluri's guide to RSA alternatives for IAM and identity governance →
RSA alternatives: what IAM teams should actually evaluate?
Explore further
12/06/2026 6:53 am
RSA alternatives should be judged as governance platforms, not as login replacements. The article makes clear that the useful comparison is whether a platform can automate provisioning, access review, and deprovisioning across the identity lifecycle. That is the core IAM control plane, not a peripheral feature set. Practitioners should treat user authentication as only one layer of the decision.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should organisations verify before replacing an IAM platform?
A: They should verify connector coverage, request status visibility, audit logging, and revocation behaviour under real operational load. If those controls are weak, the replacement may simply relocate manual work instead of reducing it. A good migration should improve evidence, speed, and governance at the same time.
👉 Read our full editorial: RSA alternatives are really about modern identity governance
