5 Ways to Automate User Access Reviews (And How to Choose the Best Approach for Your Organization)

Manual access reviews break somewhere between 500 employees and 100 applications. You already know the pain—596 hours annually, 18% of revocations never executed, audit findings on evidence quality.

The question is which automation approach fits your needs. Here's how to evaluate your five options.

The Five Phases of Access Reviews

Before evaluating options, consider the access review lifecycle:

Discovery identifies all applications and who has access.

Scoping defines what to review and who reviews it.

Execution is where reviewers evaluate and make decisions.

Remediation ensures approved changes get executed.

Evidence provides the audit trail proving the review happened.

Not all platforms solve the same problems. Some automate workflows while leaving discovery gaps. Others provide discovery but weak remediation. Understanding which phases matter most to you helps narrow your options.

Quick Reference: Where Manual Breaks

You know these problems. Here's a summary for evaluating which platforms actually solve them:

‍

With these failure points in mind, let's look at which automation category matches your situation.

Decision Framework: Choose Your Option

Start here. Match your situation to the right category, then read the detailed breakdown if needed.

Choose Compliance Automation (Vanta, Drata, Secureframe) When:

Primary goal is SOC 2 / ISO 27001 certification quickly
Access reviews are checkbox compliance, not operational priority
Application estate is small (<50 apps) and mostly behind SSO
Budget <$20K annually

Skip when: 500+ employees, 100+ applications, need governance beyond compliance checkboxes, or want SaaS optimization.

Choose Open-Source IGA (Midpoint, Apache Syncope) When:

5,000+ employees with dedicated identity team (3+ specialists)
Deep technical resources (Java developers, identity architects)
Highly custom requirements not satisfiable by commercial platforms
Implementation timeline is 12+ months
Strong commitment to vendor independence

Skip when: Mid-market (500-5,000 employees), need fast ROI, lack internal identity expertise, or have compliance deadlines in the next 6 months.

Choose Traditional IGA (SailPoint, Saviynt, Okta IGA) When:

10,000+ employees with complex identity requirements
Most applications already behind SSO (>80% federation)
Need comprehensive identity lifecycle management beyond access reviews
Have budget ($200K-$500K for setup + annual subscription cost) and timeline (6-12 months)
Dedicated identity team to manage platform long-term

Skip when: Mid-market organization, need visibility beyond SSO apps, want fast implementation (30-60 days), or lack dedicated identity resources.

Choose Modern IGA (Lumos, ConductorOne, SecureEnds) When:

Wanting faster deployment than traditional IGA
Comfortable with SSO/IdP-centric discovery (most apps already federated)
Need streamlined access reviews without enterprise complexity
Have technical resources for SDK-based custom integrations
Budget $50K-$150K annually

Skip when: Need discovery beyond SSO coverage, want pre-built integrations over custom development, require no-code workflows, or lack technical resources for CLI-based advanced configurations.

Choose Next-Gen IGA (Zluri) When:

500-5,000 employees needing visibility-first approach
Need discovery beyond SSO coverage (want to see shadow IT)
Want 30 day implementation with pre-built integrations (300+ apps)
Require no-code workflows without CLI dependency for advance workflows
Value SaaS optimization (license reclamation, spend analytics) alongside compliance
Lean IT team without dedicated identity specialists
Need closed-loop remediation across maximum number of applications

Skip when: <200 employees (manual still manageable), 5,000+ employees needing full enterprise IGA, or primarily on-premises legacy systems.

Now let's examine each option in detail.

Option Details

Option 1: Compliance Automation Platforms

Vanta, Drata, Secureframe

These platforms help you achieve and maintain certifications. They automate evidence collection, monitor security controls, and guide audit preparation.

What they do well:

Fast certification path (zero to SOC 2 Type II in months). Continuous evidence collection (screenshots, logs, configs). Multi-framework support (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, GDPR). Security control monitoring (2FA, endpoint management).

Key limitations for access reviews:

No application discovery beyond infrastructure. They see AWS, Azure, GitHub—not the 200+ SaaS apps employees actually use. You can't review access to tools the platform doesn't discover.

SSO-only coverage. They pull user lists from your IdP. Applications outside SSO are invisible. You're reviewing 30-40% of your access landscape.

Generic review workflows. No role context, no usage data, no risk flagging. Reviewers see spreadsheet-style lists.

No closed-loop remediation. They generate Jira tickets. You still manually revoke access in each application.

The verdict: Excellent for getting certified. Not identity governance. They help you prove you're doing access reviews without helping you do them well.

If you need actual identity governance—not just compliance documentation—the next categories offer more substance.

Option 2: Open-Source IGA Tools

Midpoint by Evolveum, Apache Syncope, OpenIAM

Open-source platforms give you source code to build your own identity management system. Full control, no license fees, but significant implementation burden.

What they do well:

Complete control over code and customization. No license fees (costs are implementation and maintenance). Sophisticated RBAC and policy-driven provisioning. Active community, shared connectors. Vendor independence.

Key limitations for access reviews:

Implementation complexity. You need Java developers and identity specialists. 6-12 month timelines. When your audit is in 90 days, open-source doesn't align.

Integration burden. You build and maintain every connector. Commercial platforms ship 300+ pre-built integrations.

No modern discovery. Relies on directory sync and SCIM. No browser extensions, finance integration, or CASB data. Coverage stops at federated applications (30-40%).

Maintenance overhead. Every upgrade requires developer time. You're patching broken connectors while commercial platforms auto-update.

Total cost of ownership. "Free software" becomes expensive—developer salaries, implementation services, opportunity cost often exceed commercial alternatives.

The verdict: Makes sense for large enterprises (5,000+) that want full control with dedicated identity teams and multi-year timelines. For mid-market needing fast compliance wins, open-source represents a massive burden with slow ROI.

For organizations wanting enterprise capabilities without enterprise timelines, commercial IGA platforms offer faster paths.

Option 3: Traditional IGA Platforms

SailPoint, Saviynt, Okta Identity Governance, CyberArk Identity

Enterprise-grade platforms providing comprehensive identity lifecycle management. The established category with mature capabilities—and mature complexity.

What they do well:

Full identity lifecycle (joiner/mover/leaver automation, role management, SoD). Mature compliance features for SOX, PCI DSS, HIPAA. Deep integrations for on-premises systems (AD, SAP, Oracle). Advanced role mining and RBAC engines. Privileged access workflows (JIT provisioning, break-glass). Proven at 10,000+ employee scale.

Key limitations for access reviews:

SSO/IdP-centric discovery creates structural blindness. They discover through directory sync and SCIM provisioning. This worked when IT controlled all application adoption. Today's reality is that employees use 200+ SaaS apps regularly, many purchased with credit cards, never added to IdP. Traditional IGA sees 30-40% of your SaaS landscape.

No continuous discovery. Scheduled reconciliation (nightly/weekly) means terminated employees retain access between syncs. New applications stay undiscovered until manually onboarded.

Implementation timelines don't match urgency. 6-12 months for requirements, connector development, role mining, testing, training. When your audit is 90 days away, these timelines don't work.

Complexity and cost target enterprises. Configuration requires specialized expertise. Pricing ($200K-$500K for setup + buy annual subscription) assumes dedicated identity teams. For 500-5,000 employees, traditional IGA is overengineering.

Weak SaaS optimization. Built for on-premises, adapted for cloud. No native license reclamation, unused app detection, or spend analytics.

The verdict: Powerful for large enterprises (5,000+) with complex requirements and applications primarily behind SSO. Falls short for mid-market or any company serious about governing the full SaaS landscape beyond federated applications.

A newer category of IGA platforms addresses the deployment speed problem—but shares some fundamental limitations.

Option 4: Modern IGA Platforms

Lumos, ConductorOne, SecureEnds

Modern IGA platforms solve traditional IGA's deployment and complexity problems. Faster implementation, cleaner interfaces, better suited for mid-market organizations. But they inherit a critical assumption from their predecessors.

What they do well:

Faster deployment than traditional IGA (weeks instead of months). Streamlined workflows without enterprise bloat. Better UX for reviewers. Lower price points than SailPoint/Saviynt. Some automation capabilities out of the box.

Key limitations for access reviews:

Same SSO/IdP-centric discovery approach. Modern IGA platforms jump into governance without solving the visibility problem. They still discover primarily through your IdP—Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace. Applications outside SSO remain invisible. You're governing 30-40% of your SaaS landscape while the rest operates in shadow.

Limited pre-built integrations. Platforms like ConductorOne offer <170 integrations, relying on SDK-based custom development for the rest. Your team builds and maintains connectors for applications not in their catalog. While teams with technical expertise would like this flexibility, it's an issue for non-technical IT teams.

CLI dependency for advanced workflows. Complex automations require command-line configuration. Fine for engineering teams, friction for IT teams wanting visual workflow builders.

One-to-one integration architecture. Each application connection is built individually. No native integration engine means slower expansion of coverage and more maintenance overhead.

Narrower closed-loop remediation. API coverage for fewer applications means more revocations fall back to manual tickets.

The verdict: Good fit for organizations with strong SSO coverage (>80% federation) and technical resources for custom integration development. Solves traditional IGA's speed and complexity problems but doesn't solve the fundamental visibility gap.

For organizations needing discovery beyond SSO—and wanting pre-built integrations over custom development—the next category takes a different architectural approach.

Option 5: Next-Gen IGA Platforms

Zluri

Next-gen platforms start from a different assumption: visibility first, governance second. You can't govern what you can't see—so discovery precedes everything else.

Visibility-first approach with 9-method discovery engine:

Zluri's discovery engine uses nine methods working continuously (vs 1-2 for other platforms):

SSO/IdP integration (federated apps)
Finance system integration (Brex, Ramp, NetSuite—reveals SaaS subscriptions)
Browser extensions (detect employee logins to any web app)
Desktop agents (application usage on managed devices)
HRMS integration (source of truth for employees)
Network monitoring, employee self-reporting, MDM, CASB integration

Traditional and modern IGA use SSO + HRMS (30-40% coverage). Adding multiple methods, like finance and browser discovery finds the rest. One financial services company discovered 127 applications beyond their documented inventory—$61K in untracked spend.

Native iPaaS engine enables deeper integrations:

Unlike modern IGA's one-to-one integration approach, Zluri's native iPaaS (integration platform as a service) engine enables deeper, more flexible connections. Result: 300+ pre-built integrations, which are easier to manage.

This matters for closed-loop remediation and workflow automation. More pre-built integrations mean more applications support automatic access revocation—no Jira tickets, no manual logins. For apps without direct API support, Zluri often provides alternative connection paths like SDK.

No-code workflows without CLI dependency:

IT teams build automations visually. No command-line configuration for advanced workflows. Joiner/mover/leaver playbooks, access request routing, escalation rules—all configurable through drag-and-drop interfaces.

This shifts IGA from "needs dedicated identity engineer" to "IT team can manage it." Critical for mid-market organizations without specialized resources.

Fast implementation (30-60 days):

Days 1-15: Discovery and integration
Days 16-30: Pilot configuration (20 apps)
Days 31-45: Pilot execution
Days 46-60: Full rollout

A consulting firm compared options: traditional IGA quoted 9 months and $280K implementation. Zluri: 45 days, implementation included and a fraction of cost. They chose speed—the audit deadline was 90 days away.

Closed-loop remediation on more applications:

API coverage for 300+ applications means revocations execute immediately after approval. Manual remediation completion: 82% in 6 weeks. Automated: 100% in 1 week. That 18% gap is sustained inappropriate access.

The combination of native iPaaS and extensive pre-built integrations means closed-loop remediation not just works on more of your application estate than platforms relying on custom SDK development, but is more reliable during execution as well.

Context-rich reviews:

Reviewers see usage data (last login, frequency), role type (admin vs standard), dormancy flags (90+ days inactive), and cost ($49/month license). AI flags high-risk accounts.

Previous state: managers saw "Bob has Salesforce access" and approved everyone. Now they see "Bob is Admin, last login 6 months ago, $165/month" and ask why he needs admin access. Decisions become meaningful.

Continuous monitoring between reviews:

Terminated employees detected via HRMS, access revoked within 30 minutes
Dormant accounts flagged after 60/90 days, licenses reclaimed
New application signups detected immediately
High-risk permission changes trigger alerts

Quarterly reviews validate continuous controls—they're not the only time violations get discovered.

SaaS optimization delivers immediate ROI:

License reclamation, spend analytics, renewal tracking. Average customer reclaims $60K+ annually in unused licenses. Governance pays for itself.

The verdict: Best fit for mid-market (500-5,000 employees) needing visibility-first governance, extensive pre-built integrations, no-code workflow configuration, and operational ROI alongside compliance. The architectural difference—visibility first, governance second—fundamentally changes what's possible.

Getting Started

With your category identified, here's how to move forward:

Calculate current cost: IT hours per cycle × quarterly frequency × hourly cost. Add opportunity cost. Most organizations (1000-2000 employees) discover manual costs $200K-$300K annually.

Define success criteria: Faster cycles? Better coverage? Audit-ready evidence? License savings?

Evaluate 2-3 platforms: Request demos showing complete review cycles—discovery, configuration, reviewer experience, remediation, evidence. Not product tours.

Compare discovery methods: Ask each vendor: "How do you discover applications not behind SSO? What percentage of my SaaS stack will you see?"

Verify remediation: Ask: "How many applications support closed-loop API remediation? What happens for apps without APIs?"

Compare integration approach: Ask: "How many pre-built integrations? What's your approach for applications not in your catalog—SDK development or alternative connection methods?"

Validate timeline: Ask: "What's typical implementation for my size—not best case, actual typical?"

Run pilot: 20 applications, prove value, expand.

The question isn't whether to automate. It's which approach matches your size, timeline, and pain points.