Topic starter
11/06/2026 11:50 pm
TL;DR: The real decision point is how well an IGA platform enforces least privilege, reviewability, and revocation across users, third parties, and machine identities, according to Zluri. Tool choice matters less than whether governance processes can keep pace with entitlement sprawl and standing access.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Saviynt vs One Identity - Which is The Suitable IGA Tool?”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when IGA reviews are based on broad roles instead of effective access?
A: Broad roles hide inherited permissions, temporary elevation, and privilege combinations that materially change risk.
Q: Why do standing privileges create more IGA risk than periodic access reviews can absorb?
A: Standing privilege creates risk because access exists continuously, not only at the moment it is approved.
Q: How should organisations govern third-party and machine identity access in the same IGA programme?
A: Use separate lifecycle and certification rules for third parties and machine identities because their access patterns, ownership, and offboarding triggers differ from employee accounts.
Practitioner guidance
- Measure effective access, not just roles Validate the permissions a user, third party, or machine identity can actually exercise after role assignment, inheritance, and privilege elevation are applied.
- Test deprovisioning against every connected system Confirm that leaver and offboarding workflows remove access from directories, cloud apps, privileged tools, and downstream entitlements without manual cleanup.
- Separate human and non-human lifecycle logic Build distinct lifecycle rules for employees, contractors, service accounts, and machine identities so one workflow does not overfit human HR events.
Bottom line: IGA tool comparisons often miss the real control question: whether access can be governed cleanly across lifecycle, certification, and privilege.
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 8:41 am
IGA comparisons fail when they measure features instead of governance reach: A platform can support lifecycle workflows, certifications, and privileged access controls while still leaving the organisation with weak entitlement discipline. The practical question is whether access state changes are accurate, timely, and revocable across every identity type that matters. Tool breadth matters less than whether governance can keep privilege within reviewable bounds.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should teams prioritise privileged access control over broader IGA feature comparisons?
A: Yes, when the business risk is elevated access that can change systems, expose data, or bypass normal approvals. Feature breadth matters less than whether the programme can prevent standing privilege and prove revocation. Teams should prioritise the controls that materially reduce misuse and audit failure, then evaluate convenience features after that.
👉 Read our full editorial: Saviynt vs One Identity: what the IGA comparison misses
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group