Zero trust tool sprawl: what IAM teams need to fix first

TL;DR: Fragmented identity, device, PAM, and monitoring tools are making full Zero Trust coverage difficult to achieve, with Gartner cited in the source saying only 16% of organisations extend strategy to at least 75% of users, devices, apps, and infrastructure. The core problem is not the framework itself, but disconnected enforcement and visibility across control planes.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by JumpCloud: unified zero trust and the limits of fragmented security tools

By the numbers:

• Only 16% of organizations say their Zero Trust strategy extends to at least 75% of their users, devices, apps, and infrastructure.
• 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should teams unify zero trust controls across identity and device security?

A: Teams should map identity, device posture, privilege, and monitoring to one access decision model, then remove manual reconciliation between tools.

Q: Why do fragmented tools make zero trust harder to scale?

A: Fragmented tools force organisations to enforce policy in pieces, which creates timing gaps, inconsistent exceptions, and weak auditability.

Q: What breaks when privileged access and device trust are managed separately?

A: Privilege can be granted without the endpoint being checked at the same moment, which breaks the assumption that elevated access only comes from compliant devices.

Practitioner guidance

• Map Zero Trust controls to a single decision path Document where identity, device posture, privilege, and monitoring are evaluated today, then identify every place a human has to reconcile outputs manually.
• Bind device health checks to privileged access workflows Require endpoint compliance signals before elevation is approved, and verify that the same posture data is visible to the PAM and identity layers.
• Consolidate access telemetry into one audit trail Pull identity events, privileged sessions, and device checks into a common reporting layer so investigations do not require cross-tool reconstruction.

What's in the full article

JumpCloud's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• A practical breakdown of how the vendor groups IAM, device trust, PAM, and monitoring into one policy model.
• Specific examples of how unified access decisions reduce manual switching between tools during enforcement.
• The article's own explanation of how centralised visibility is intended to simplify compliance reporting and response workflows.
• The source's product-specific description of how its single-platform approach is positioned across access, posture, and reporting.

👉 Read JumpCloud's analysis of unified zero trust and tool fragmentation →

Zero trust tool sprawl: what IAM teams need to fix first?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →