IGA vs IAM: What’s the Difference?

IAM deals with ‘who’ has access while IGA deals more with ‘should they have access?

Even though most IAM software can handle both - There are several aspects where they differ like where the are used, and their features. And here’s what you need to know:

What is IGA?

IGA or Identity Governance and Administration software focuses on managing and overseeing user identities and their access to resources. IGA makes sure that access rights are granted based on rules and policies. It also helps organizations meet compliance requirements by tracking and auditing user activities.

IGA tools often include features like role management, access reviews, and reporting. They make sure that users have the right level of access and that any unnecessary permissions are removed. By using IGA, companies can reduce risks and improve their security posture.

What is IAM?

IAM or Identity and Access Management software focuses on controlling who can access specific systems, applications, and data. In doing so, IAM ensures that only authorized users can access resources. It also helps manage user authentication and authorization processes.

IAM tools include features like password management, single sign-on (SSO), and multi-factor authentication (MFA). These tools make it easier for users to log in while keeping systems secure. IAM is critical for managing access to digital resources in a way that minimizes security risks.

8 Key Differences in IGA vs IAM

1. IGA Solutions Tend to Have More Complete Oversight

IGA provides a broader view of user identities and access rights. It includes tools for tracking and auditing user activities. This oversight helps organizations stay compliant with regulations. IAM focuses more on granting access and logging events without the same level of governance.

• IGA tools often include automated alerts for unusual access patterns, helping reduce the risk of compliance breaches.
• How long it takes to implement and timelines can vary depending on the size of the company but typically range from 6 to 12 months for full deployment. But for IGA solutions like infisign it can take 4 hours to week at most.
• Cost considerations include licensing, training, and ongoing maintenance for compliance features.

2. IAM Mostly Handles Access and Logging, and IGA Has More Advanced Analytics

IAM tools focus on access control and tracking user logins. They are good at managing passwords and enforcing authentication rules. IGA, on the other hand, includes advanced analytics to identify risks and enforce compliance. These analytics help organizations detect potential threats.

• IAM logging capabilities prioritize system efficiency but lack deeper insights like access certification audits.
• IGA's analytics can predict insider threats by correlating access requests with behavior patterns.
• CIOs should evaluate compliance laws like GDPR or CCPA, where detailed identity analytics from IGA are often required.
• Potential mishaps include false positives in risk detection; regular fine-tuning of analytic thresholds is recommended.

3. IAM Has More Integration Capabilities While IGA Can Be Used As a Standalone Software

IAM tools often integrate with existing systems to manage access across multiple platforms. They rely on integration to function effectively. IGA solutions, however, can operate as standalone tools. They are designed to provide oversight and compliance without requiring deep system integration.

• IGA standalone capabilities make it a strong choice for smaller teams needing independent compliance solutions.
• Both require careful evaluation of compatibility with existing software stacks to avoid deployment delays.
• Timelines for IAM integrations can extend to 9–18 months for in-house solutions. For IAM and IGA providers like Infisign, it can be implemented in 4 hours or three days at the most depending on whether you have existing directories.

4. IAM Improves Access, IGA Deals More With Approvals and Certifications

IAM simplifies user access by managing authentication. IGA focuses on approvals, ensuring that access rights align with company policies. It also handles certifications to verify that permissions are appropriate and up-to-date.

• IAM simplifies password management and self-service account recovery, minimizing downtime for users.
• Certification processes in IGA often align with specific laws like SOX or HIPAA to meet audit expectations.
• Neglecting periodic certification reviews could result in compliance gaps, underscoring the need for regular oversight.

5. IGA Focuses More on Compliance and IAM More on Workflow Access

IGA tools are designed to meet legal and regulatory requirements. They include features for auditing and reporting. IAM tools prioritize workflow efficiency by enabling quick and secure access to resources.

• IGA includes built-in templates for regulatory reporting, cutting down time spent on audit preparation.
• IAM tools enhance user productivity with faster provisioning of role-specific access.
• Non-compliance penalties for IGA users can reach millions, particularly under stringent regulations like PCI DSS.
• Cost analysis for IAM should account for scalability if access needs expand beyond initial projections.

6. IAM is Used by IT Teams and Admins - IGA is Used More by Compliance Officers

IAM tools are typically managed by IT teams to control access and security. IGA tools are often used by compliance officers to guarantee that access meets with regulatory standards. This division reflects the different goals of each tool.

• Compliance officers typically use IGA to generate periodic access reviews, essential for meeting industry standards.
• Both tools require distinct training programs tailored to their end-users, increasing operational costs.

7. Segregation of Duties (SoD)

IGA focuses on segregation of duties (SoD) to prevent conflicts of interest. It makes certain that no single user has excessive control over sensitive operations. IAM does not emphasize this feature as strongly.

• SoD policies in IGA tools can be configured to align with financial compliance standards like COSO or COBIT.
• IAM systems lack the granularity of role-based restrictions needed for robust SoD enforcement.
• Mishandling SoD policies could lead to operational bottlenecks, making careful configuration essential.
• Automated SoD conflict detection in IGA reduces human error, but upfront customization may increase costs.

8. IAM Focuses More on Internal Policies and IGA More on Legal Policies

IAM tools are often tailored to enforce internal security policies. IGA tools are designed to meet external legal and regulatory requirements. This distinction highlights their different priorities.

• IGA includes compliance rule libraries to address evolving global regulations like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
• CIOs and CTOs must confirm that data residency requirements are addressed during deployment, especially for global companies.
• Non-compliance with external regulations using IGA may lead to reputational damage and financial penalties.

Challenges in IGA vs IAM

Authentication Versus Compliance

IAM tools focus on verifying user identities and granting access based on roles. In contrast, IGA systems emphasize monitoring user actions to help meet compliance with laws, internal policies, and external regulations. 

IAM typically prioritizes speed and efficiency in access control, while IGA integrates broader governance processes like auditing and certification to meet compliance needs. Both approaches are essential but serve different purposes in a security strategy.

Stakeholder Buy-In

Gaining buy-in for both IAM and IGA requires input from IT, security teams, HR, and business leaders, as these tools impact multiple departments. Educating stakeholders on the risks of insufficient identity and governance controls is vital to secure funding and support.

Additionally, defining clear roles and responsibilities among stakeholders can reduce delays in decision-making. Collaboration across teams is key to successful implementation and ongoing management.

Complex Role Management

Establishing roles in IAM and IGA often involves mapping access permissions to specific job functions. This process can become unwieldy with dynamic job roles, temporary workers, and evolving organizational needs.

Automating role management using predefined policies and role-mining techniques can ease this complexity. Regularly reviewing and updating role definitions guarantees alignment with business and security requirements.

IGA Has More Difficulty With Scalability

IGA's heavy reliance on regulatory oversight and approval workflows makes scaling challenging, especially in large or highly regulated industries. Adding new users or applications often requires significant customization and approval cycles. 

Modern IGA systems are beginning to incorporate machine learning to streamline scalability, but these advancements still require careful planning and resource allocation.

IAM Can Have Misuse Due To Lower Governance

Without robust governance, IAM tools risk becoming a backdoor for excessive or unauthorized access. For instance, orphaned accounts—accounts left active after employees leave—pose significant risks. 

Regular audits, privilege reviews, and revocation processes are critical to maintaining the integrity of IAM systems. Strong governance frameworks reduce misuse and bolster organizational security.

IAM User Adoption Can Be Slower

Resistance to new IAM systems often stems from poor user experience or lack of training. Simplifying workflows through single sign-on (SSO) or adaptive authentication can improve user acceptance.

The help of step-by-step training materials and addressing common user concerns creates smoother adoption. Aside from this, things like gamifying the learning process or providing ongoing support can also speed up how quickly your team gets used to it.

IAM Needs More Integration With Your Existing Tech Stack

IAM tools often need to integrate with various platforms like HR systems, databases, and enterprise applications. Complexities arise when these systems have inconsistent protocols, outdated APIs, or unique configurations. 

Using middleware or standard protocols like SAML or OAuth can facilitate smoother integration. Thorough testing before deployment reduces potential disruptions.

Difficulty Working With Legacy Systems

Legacy systems may lack modern authentication protocols, making integration with IAM and IGA tools problematic. Wrapping legacy systems with APIs or using lightweight directories can help bridge compatibility gaps.

However, these solutions require significant technical expertise. A phased approach to modernization often works best for mitigating these challenges.

Issues With On-Premises Versus Cloud Software Usage

Choosing between on-premises and cloud solutions involves balancing security, cost, and flexibility. On-premises systems often have greater control but require more resources for maintenance and updates.

Cloud solutions, while scalable and cost-effective, introduce concerns about data residency and vendor lock-in. Hybrid models provide a compromise but demand careful management of both environments.

How Infisign Bridges the Gap in IGA vs IAM

• Single Sign On (SSO): Infisign simplifies login processes with SSO. This feature improves user experience and security.
• Automated User Lifecycle Management: Infisign automates user lifecycle processes. It makes sure that access is updated as roles change.
• Directory Sync: Infisign syncs with directories to manage user data. This keeps information accurate and up-to-date.
• AI Access Assist: Infisign uses AI to recommend appropriate access rights. This reduces the risk of errors.
• Attribute-Based Access Control: Infisign allows access based on user attributes. This assures that permissions match user roles.
• Privileged Access Control: Infisign provides tools for managing privileged access. It helps protect sensitive resources.
• Network Access Gateway: Infisign secures network access with advanced controls. This prevents unauthorized access.
• Automatic Audits and Logging for Compliance: Infisign includes automatic audit and logging features. These help organizations meet compliance requirements.
• Impersonation: Infisign allows secure impersonation for troubleshooting. This feature is helpful for IT teams.

IGA vs IAM: The Key Takeaway

IGA and IAM are essential tools for managing digital identities. While they have different focuses, they both play a major role in security and compliance. Infisign is a solution that bridges the gap between these tools. By combining the strengths of IGA and IAM, Infisign helps companies improve security through a zero-trust framework that has features like Adaptive MFA and conditional access for watertight security. Paired with it’s SSO it makes logging in simple and easy. Infisign’s ABAC, PAM and policy management helps you enable IGA with granular control over everyone that has access. Want to know more? Book a free demo!