Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 10:01 pm
TL;DR: Varonis alternatives are being evaluated less on data visibility alone and more on identity security depth, real-time blocking, deployment flexibility, and total cost of ownership, according to Netwrix's guide, noting cloud account compromise rose from 16% to 46% between 2020 and 2025 in its 2025 Cybersecurity Trends Report. The practical shift is clear: data security platforms now have to contend with identity as the attack path, not just the place where evidence appears.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Netwrix: 8 Varonis alternatives worth evaluating in 2026
By the numbers:
- cloud account compromise nearly tripled between 2020 and 2025, rising from 16% to 46%
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams evaluate data security platforms for identity-led attacks?
A: Teams should test whether the platform can see identity compromise as early as possible, not just the resulting data access.
Q: Why do compromised credentials create a bigger problem than data visibility alone can solve?
A: Because the attack begins at the identity layer.
Q: What should organisations look for when comparing hybrid security platforms?
A: They should verify deployment flexibility, coverage across Microsoft and non-Microsoft environments, and whether the tool can support both identity security and data security without forcing separate vendors.
Practitioner guidance
- Map identity-led attack paths to data controls Trace where compromised credentials could reach sensitive data, then check whether your current stack can detect, block, and investigate that path before exfiltration occurs.
- Separate detection coverage from blocking coverage Document which controls only alert and which can actually stop abusive identity actions in real time, especially in environments without 24/7 SOC coverage.
- Test hybrid visibility across all major data planes Validate coverage for on-premises file servers, Microsoft 365, cloud storage, databases, and Active Directory, then note where the platform depends on cloud-only assumptions.
What's in the full article
Netwrix's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Eight-vendor comparison table with pricing, deployment, and capability tradeoffs
- Per-product capability notes on DSPM, ITDR, PAM, DLP, and hybrid support
- Implementation and fit guidance for Microsoft-heavy, cloud-first, and regulated environments
👉 Read Netwrix's comparison of Varonis alternatives for identity and data security →
Varonis alternatives in 2026: where identity security gaps show up?
Explore further
13/06/2026 12:29 am
Identity security is now the deciding layer in data security evaluation. The guide is really about a control shift, not a feature comparison. If attackers enter through credentials, then data visibility alone is not enough to stop them. The implication is that practitioners should stop treating DSPM, ITDR, PAM, and DLP as separate buying tracks when the attack path is already connected.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 80% of identity breaches involved compromised non-human identities such as service accounts and API keys, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which helps explain why identity exposure remains so hard to contain.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own the decision when identity security and data security overlap?
A: The decision should be shared across IAM, PAM, data security, and security architecture teams because the control boundary is shared. When credentials are the entry point and data is the target, ownership has to cover both the identity lifecycle and the response model, otherwise gaps get left between teams.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity security is now central to Varonis replacement decisions
