The identity governance and administration (IGA) market is dominated by large enterprise vendors. But their solutions were designed for a different era. Here's how IdentityFirst compares to traditional IGA platforms.
Understanding the IGA landscape
Traditional IGA platforms
The established IGA vendors include:
- SailPoint: Market leader, enterprise-focused
- Saviynt: Cloud-native IGA
- Okta Identity Governance: Okta's IGA offering
- Microsoft Entra ID Governance: Microsoft's solution
- One Identity: Quest's IGA platform
These platforms were built for:
- Large enterprises with complex identity environments
- Heavy implementation requirements
- Dedicated identity teams to manage them
- Significant budget for licensing and services
The SME challenge
Traditional IGA was designed for organisations that:
- Have dedicated identity teams
- Can afford six-figure implementation projects
- Need deeply complex functionality
- Have years to achieve value
This leaves most organisations underserved.
Side-by-side comparison
Deployment and time to value
| Factor | Traditional IGA | IdentityFirst |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation time | 6-18 months | Hours to days |
| Deployment model | Professional services | Self-service |
| Configuration complexity | High | Low |
| Time to first value | Months | Immediate |
| Ongoing maintenance | Significant | Minimal |
Traditional IGA requires implementation projects, consulting engagements, and extensive configuration. IdentityFirst is designed for immediate deployment with minimal setup.
Pricing and cost
| Factor | Traditional IGA | IdentityFirst |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | £50,000+/year | £99/month |
| Implementation costs | £100,000+ | None required |
| Ongoing fees | Large annual increases | Predictable pricing |
| Total cost of ownership | Very high | Low |
Traditional IGA pricing puts it out of reach for most SMEs. IdentityFirst is designed to be accessible at every tier.
Functionality
| Capability | Traditional IGA | IdentityFirst |
|---|---|---|
| Identity discovery | Yes | Yes |
| Access certification | Yes | Yes |
| Policy enforcement | Yes | Yes |
| Compliance mapping | Yes | Yes |
| Reporting | Yes | Yes |
| Remediation guidance | Yes | Yes |
| Automated workflows | Extensive | Essentials |
Traditional IGA offers extensive automation and workflows. IdentityFirst focuses on core capabilities that deliver immediate value.
Ease of use
| Factor | Traditional IGA | IdentityFirst |
|---|---|---|
| User interface | Complex | Simple |
| Learning curve | Steep | Gentle |
| Documentation | Extensive | Focused |
| Support model | Dedicated CSM | Self-service + support |
| Training required | Significant | Minimal |
Traditional IGA platforms require significant training. IdentityFirst is designed for intuitive use.
Target organisation
| Factor | Traditional IGA | IdentityFirst |
|---|---|---|
| Ideal size | 5,000+ employees | Any size |
| IT team | Dedicated identity team | Small/oversubscribed |
| Budget | Six figures+ | Mid-market |
| Use case | Complex governance | Identity visibility |
Traditional IGA fits large enterprises. IdentityFirst serves organisations that need identity security but lack enterprise resources.
When to choose traditional IGA
Traditional IGA makes sense when:
You have complex requirements:
- Highly complex access models
- Extensive workflow requirements
- Deep integration needs
You have the resources:
- Dedicated identity team
- Large implementation budget
- Time for lengthy deployments
You're a large enterprise:
- 5,000+ employees
- Complex multi-domain environments
- Regulatory pressure requiring extensive controls
You need advanced features:
- Complex segregation of duties
- Extensive certification campaigns
- Advanced analytics
When to choose IdentityFirst
IdentityFirst is ideal when:
You're an SME:
- 50-5,000 employees
- Limited IT resources
- Budget constraints
You need speed:
- Quick deployment required
- Immediate visibility needed
- Time to value matters
You want simplicity:
- Straightforward requirements
- Limited IT team
- Preference for self-service
You're underserved:
- Traditional IGA is too expensive
- Too complex for your needs
- Need results not projects
Key differentiators
IdentityFirst advantages
Speed to value:
- Deploy in hours, not months
- See results immediately
- No implementation projects
Affordability:
- Pricing accessible to SMEs
- No hidden costs
- Predictable scaling
Simplicity:
- Self-service deployment
- Intuitive interface
- Minimal training
Focus:
- Core capabilities that matter
- No feature complexity
- Built for your use case
What traditional IGA does better
Scale:
- Handles very large environments
- Complex multi-domain support
- Extensive integration options
Automation:
- Sophisticated workflows
- Complex certification campaigns
- Advanced orchestration
Enterprise features:
- Deep compliance mapping
- Advanced analytics
- Custom integrations
Making the decision
Choose IdentityFirst if:
- You need identity visibility now
- Budget is a consideration
- You lack implementation resources
- You want simplicity over complexity
- You're underserved by traditional options
Choose traditional IGA if:
- You have complex governance requirements
- You have dedicated identity resources
- Budget is not a constraint
- You need advanced automation
- You're a very large organisation
The hybrid approach
Many organisations use both:
- IdentityFirst for day-to-day identity visibility
- Traditional IGA for specific governance needs
- Complementary tools addressing different use cases
This is practical when:
- Budget allows for multiple tools
- Specific use cases require advanced features
- Migration from legacy systems is phased
Conclusion
Traditional IGA platforms serve large enterprises well. But they were never designed for the mid-market. IdentityFirst fills this gap—providing essential identity governance at a price and complexity that works for SMEs.
The key question isn't which is "better"—it's which is right for your organisation. If traditional IGA is over-engineered for your needs, IdentityFirst delivers the visibility and governance you need—without the complexity you don't.
Choose based on your requirements, resources, and timeline. Both have their place in the market.