AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
Continuous discovery is materially stronger than a periodic scan, since access grants change constantly; look for a stated refresh cadence, not just 'we scan your environment.'
Strong answers give a concrete before/after figure (e.g., '% of standing access revoked') tied to a named customer, not a generic 'we reduce your attack surface' claim.
Look for an owner-approval or automated revocation workflow; detection-only tools that dump a report on IT rarely result in actual remediation at scale.
Non-human identity sprawl is a distinct and growing risk; a platform that only governs human user access is missing a large and often more dangerous share of standing access.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Look for a real JIT workflow with a stated approval-latency figure from production use, not a theoretical capability never deployed at scale.
Strong answers support a custom or imported taxonomy and explicitly address integration with existing classification tooling, avoiding a second source of truth.
Look for automated certification campaigns (reviewers notified, decisions tracked, evidence exported) rather than a report the compliance team must manually turn into a certification process.
A single unified data model across both structured cloud data and unstructured file shares is stronger than two separate products with inconsistent policy definitions.
Genuine multi-entity isolation is materially more useful for a diversified organization than one shared view forcing a one-size-fits-all governance posture.
Same tension as other discovery-driven categories: successful access-sprawl discovery inherently increases the counted population — ask explicitly how pricing handles a large post-onboarding jump.
Strong answers describe a fast, specific forensic query capability with a real turnaround-time figure — this is one of DAG's highest-value use cases during an actual breach, not just preventive posture.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
Look for genuine integration into a unified identity risk view; a standalone DAG dashboard disconnected from the broader IAM/PAM picture creates real reconciliation burden.
A complete access-to-sensitive-data map is a meaningful target in its own right — role-based access control over the tool's own findings is an often-overlooked consideration.
A high false-positive rate creates real alert fatigue and can lead to legitimate access being incorrectly revoked — ask for a real, customer-validated accuracy figure and a correction workflow.
Strong answers give a concrete, customer-validated timeline for a realistic existing-sprawl scenario (not a small greenfield deployment), and are honest about the customer-side connection effort required.