The best user access review software in 2026 depends on what the review has to prove. To pass SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA or SOX audits, start with a GRC platform that runs reviews inside the compliance program, led by Compyl, with Drata, Vanta, Secureframe and Sprinto as alternatives. For deeper entitlement automation, look at C1 (formerly ConductorOne), Lumos, Zluri, Opal and Torii; large enterprises should consider SailPoint, Saviynt, Okta Identity Governance, Microsoft Entra ID Governance or Veza, now part of ServiceNow.
Access is still where breaches start. Verizon reports that the use of compromised credentials was an initial access vector in 22% of the breaches reviewed in the 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report. Every stale account and leftover admin role is a credential an attacker can use, which is why auditors treat the access review as a core control.
Last updated November 2, 2026.
Key takeaways
- SOC 2, ISO 27001:2022, PCI DSS 4.0.1, HIPAA and SOX ITGCs all expect periodic access reviews; PCI DSS requires them at least every six months.
- Tools fall into three groups: GRC platforms, dedicated access governance tools and enterprise IGA suites.
- Compyl pulls access from Okta, Microsoft Entra, Google Directory and JumpCloud, turns every revoke into a tracked task, and maps each review to SOC 2 CC6.x, ISO A.5.18 and PCI 7.2.4 in one control library.
- Compyl, C1 and Saviynt publish ServiceNow integrations; most tools on this list publish Okta support.
- Auditors flag reviews as rubber-stamped when there is no proof the user list was complete, no evidence revocations happened, and terminated users still appear. Software fixes this only if it captures all three.
What types of user access review software are there?
Buyers often compare tools from three categories that solve different problems.
| Category | What it is strong at | Where it stops / when it fits |
|---|---|---|
| GRC platforms with built-in access reviews | Running review campaigns that automatically become audit evidence, mapped to controls across SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA and SOX | Fits compliance-led programs where the review must satisfy auditors across several frameworks and connect to risk, policy and asset data |
| Dedicated access governance tools | Deep entitlement data, usage signals, access requests, just-in-time access and automated deprovisioning | Fits IT and security teams focused on access operations; compliance mapping, risk and audit management usually live in a separate GRC tool |
| Enterprise identity governance (IGA) | Large-scale certifications, role mining, separation-of-duties analysis and lifecycle provisioning across thousands of apps | Built for large enterprises with dedicated identity teams; implementation is a multi-quarter project for most mid-size companies |
Which frameworks require periodic user access reviews?
- SOC 2 (CC6.2 and CC6.3). CC6.2 covers authorizing users before issuing credentials and removing them when access is no longer authorized. CC6.3 requires that the entity “authorizes, modifies, or removes access” based on roles, with least privilege and segregation of duties, and its points of focus include periodic review of access roles and rules.
- ISO 27001:2022 (Annex A 5.18, Access rights). Access rights must be provisioned, reviewed, modified and removed in line with policy. Guidance on the control calls for regular reviews by asset owners, more frequent review of privileged rights, and removal of access when employment ends.
- PCI DSS 4.0.1 (Requirement 7.2.4). All user accounts and related access privileges must be reviewed at least every six months. Our PCI DSS 4.0.1 compliance guide covers the requirements that became mandatory in 2025.
- HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR 164.308(a)(4)). The information access management standard includes an access establishment and modification specification to “establish, document, review, and modify a user’s right of access.” Related provisions require regular review of information system activity and procedures for terminating access when a workforce member leaves.
- SOX IT general controls. Access to financially significant systems is tested as part of the logical access ITGC domain, and quarterly reviews of ERP and finance applications are common. See what SOX ITGCs are and how they are tested.
Best GRC platforms with built-in user access reviews
These platforms run reviews inside the compliance program, so a completed campaign is also control evidence. This is the right starting point for most 200 to 1,000 employee companies.
1. Compyl
Best for: Mid-size and growing companies that want access reviews run as live certification campaigns and mapped automatically to controls across every framework they answer to.
Compyl’s user access review software pulls access straight from Okta, Microsoft Entra, Google Directory and JumpCloud, and lets you upload files from systems that are not integrated so no user is missed. You get one view of every user, system, role and last login, with orphaned and overprovisioned accounts surfaced automatically.
Campaigns can be recurring (quarterly or annual) or ad hoc by system, role or risk level. Each entitlement is routed to the manager accountable for it, with live progress, due dates and reminders per reviewer. Reviewers approve or revoke in one click and can tag colleagues for input. When access is declined, Compyl creates and assigns the revocation task automatically and tracks it to closure, so the review produces one trail of who had access, when it was reviewed and what was done.
The difference is what happens after the review. Every outcome is mapped to the controls it satisfies, such as SOC 2 CC6.1 to CC6.3, ISO 27001 A.5.18, PCI DSS 7.2.4 and NIST AC-2, inside one control library cross-mapped across 70+ frameworks. Because reviews live in the same platform as compliance, IT asset management, risk and policy management, overprovisioned access feeds your risk register and reviews enforce the access policies you have approved. Compyl’s 125+ integrations are built in-house, with Okta and ServiceNow both in the integration catalog, and each customer runs in a dedicated single-tenant environment.
2. Drata
Best for: Teams already using Drata for SOC 2 or ISO 27001 automation that want an annual or periodic review inside the same tool.
Drata’s User Access Reviews centralizes access data from connected and manually added systems, with nightly syncs. Admins start a review period, choose applications and assign a reviewer per application. Reviewers can filter accounts by risk indicators including former personnel, service accounts, admin privileges and missing MFA, and mark each approved, rejected or out of scope. Completed reviews generate evidence mapped to a control and stored in the evidence library. Drata’s help center names Okta, Microsoft and Google Workspace as identity sources.
3. Vanta
Best for: Organizations new to access reviews that want a guided process alongside Vanta’s compliance automation.
Vanta Access Reviews pulls account data from connected systems into one interface, so admins do not need a license in every system to review it. It includes reviewer workflows, remediation management and continuous monitoring of access changes, and lets you assign reviews independently of the system owner. For apps without an integration, Vanta’s documentation says you can upload a CSV, screenshot or PDF of access.
4. Secureframe
Best for: Secureframe customers that want application access reviews run in the same workflow as their audit preparation.
Secureframe User Access Reviews pulls user data through native or custom integrations or CSV upload. Teams assign reviewers per system, set recurring schedules and reminders, and let non-admin users participate. Reviewers can maintain, modify, revoke or mark access out of scope, and follow-up tasks can sync to a connected ticketing tool. Each review records who completed it, what was decided and how remediation was handled.
5. Sprinto
Best for: Smaller cloud-native teams that want access checks run continuously against defined rules as part of compliance monitoring.
Sprinto’s access management connects critical systems into one inventory of who has access to what, assigns owners for access reviews, and logs reviews, approvals and revocations as audit evidence. Sprinto continuously validates user access against role-based rules and alerts on access drift and MFA gaps.
Best dedicated access review and access governance tools for mid-market teams
These tools go deeper on entitlements, usage and automated deprovisioning, and are often paired with a GRC platform that handles controls, risk and audits.
6. C1 (formerly ConductorOne)
Best for: Security teams that want identity governance, user access reviews and just-in-time access across both Okta and ServiceNow.
ConductorOne renamed itself C1 in April 2026, with a focus on governing human and non-human identities, including AI agents. Its Okta connector syncs accounts, groups, app assignments and org roles, supports user access reviews, and can provision and deprovision access. Its ServiceNow connector supports user access reviews of ServiceNow roles and groups and just-in-time access requests.
7. Lumos
Best for: Teams that want AI-assisted, delta-based reviews that only show reviewers what changed since the last cycle.
Lumos Access Reviews collects entitlement-level data from identity providers, HR systems, ITSM, SaaS, cloud and on-prem systems. Its AI agent flags anomalies, separation-of-duties violations and privileged access, remembers prior decisions and exceptions, and can auto-revoke rejected access with actions tracked in ITSM tools. Lumos runs delta-based access reviews for Okta.
8. Zluri
Best for: SaaS-heavy companies that want usage data to spot dormant accounts and right-size access during reviews.
Zluri Access Reviews supports recurring certifications, delegation, reminders, multi-level reviewers and bulk approvals for low-risk accounts. Activity data identifies dormant accounts using adjustable inactivity thresholds, and risk insights flag orphaned, overprivileged and external accounts. After a review, Zluri can deprovision access through API integrations, including local and service accounts outside the identity provider.
9. Opal Security
Best for: Engineering-heavy organizations that want access reviews alongside least-privilege and just-in-time access to infrastructure.
Opal’s user access review solution launches reviews from a central dashboard, sends reminders in Slack, and lets reviewers remove or adjust access directly through Opal. It produces audit-ready reports, exports access logs by API or CSV, and alerts on access to sensitive permissions, break-glass usage and role or manager changes. It targets SOX, SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HITRUST reviews.
10. Torii
Best for: IT teams that need to discover shadow SaaS before they can review it.
Torii Access Reviews starts with continuous discovery of every app and entitlement, sanctioned or not, so reviews cover the full environment. Reviews carry usage and risk context, are delegated to owners by policy, and include bots and service accounts in the same flow.
Best enterprise identity governance platforms for access certifications
These are enterprise-scale options, or the native option inside an identity provider or ITSM platform you already run. Most require a dedicated identity team.
11. SailPoint
Best for: Large enterprises with a dedicated identity team and complex role models across thousands of applications.
SailPoint certification campaigns let managers or system owners review users’ access, decide whether it is appropriate or should be revoked, and sign off, with SailPoint remediating revoked access. Its ServiceNow integration lets users request access from inside ServiceNow with every request, approval and change logged.
12. Saviynt
Best for: Enterprises that want identity governance and privileged access in one converged platform, run from inside ServiceNow.
Saviynt describes itself as identity, application and privileged access management and governance in one solution, covering workforce, external and non-human identities across on-prem and multi-cloud environments. Its ServiceNow integration lets teams manage access requests, approvals and certifications directly within ServiceNow, with detective separation-of-duties checks across applications.
13. Okta Identity Governance
Best for: Okta-centric companies that want certifications native to their identity provider.
Okta Access Certifications supports recurring certification campaigns and event-driven security access reviews. Campaigns can cover groups, apps, entitlements, entitlement bundles, service accounts and, with an add-on, AI agents. Okta remediates access automatically based on campaign settings, including removal in third-party apps through existing integrations.
14. Microsoft Entra ID Governance
Best for: Microsoft 365 and Azure organizations that want reviews of groups, enterprise apps and privileged roles in Entra.
Microsoft Entra access reviews cover security and Microsoft 365 group membership, users assigned to connected enterprise apps, Entra and Azure resource roles through Privileged Identity Management, and access package assignments. Reviews can recur weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually, with smart recommendations for reviewers. The feature requires Microsoft Entra ID Governance or Microsoft Entra Suite subscriptions, with some capabilities available under Entra ID P2.
15. Veza (ServiceNow Access Reviews)
Best for: Large ServiceNow customers that want certifications based on effective permissions rather than role names.
ServiceNow completed its acquisition of Veza on March 2, 2026. Veza maps effective permissions across apps, data systems, cloud and SaaS. ServiceNow Access Reviews automates certifications for users, entitlements, non-human identities and AI agents, runs them periodically, on demand or on events, flags dormant accounts and separation-of-duties violations, and removes rejected access automatically. Veza’s access reviews list Okta among supported integrations.
Which access review platforms integrate with Okta and ServiceNow?
Okta usually holds the identity data, and ServiceNow holds the tickets or is itself in scope. Based on each vendor’s published pages as of November 2026:
- Compyl: pulls access from Okta for review campaigns, and lists both Okta and ServiceNow in its in-house integration catalog.
- C1: documents an Okta connector and a ServiceNow connector, both supporting user access reviews.
- Saviynt: documents running certifications inside ServiceNow.
- ServiceNow Access Reviews (Veza): native to ServiceNow, with Okta listed among Veza’s integrations.
- Okta Identity Governance, Lumos and Drata: publish Okta support for access reviews.
How to choose user access review software
| Your situation | Start here | Why |
|---|---|---|
| You need quarterly reviews to satisfy SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA or SOX auditors | Compyl | Reviews are mapped to controls across 70+ frameworks, so one campaign produces evidence for all of them |
| You are outgrowing an audit-readiness tool | Compyl | Access findings feed risk, asset and policy management in the same platform |
| You already run Drata, Vanta, Secureframe or Sprinto and only need a basic periodic review | Your current platform’s access review module | Lowest switching effort for a first review cycle |
| IT owns access operations and wants just-in-time access and automated deprovisioning | C1, Lumos, Opal or Zluri | Deeper entitlement and provisioning features |
| Shadow SaaS is your biggest blind spot | Torii or Zluri | Discovery comes before review |
| You are a large enterprise with an identity team and thousands of apps | SailPoint, Saviynt or Veza | Built for enterprise-scale certification and role governance |
| Nearly all your access runs through one identity provider | Okta Identity Governance or Microsoft Entra ID Governance | Native certifications for that provider’s groups and apps |
What to ask before buying
- Which of our systems can you pull access from automatically, and how do we include systems you cannot connect to?
- Can you show the Okta and ServiceNow connectors working against our own tenant, not a demo environment?
- How do you prove the user list is complete and accurate, so our auditor can rely on it?
- When a reviewer revokes access, what happens next: a ticket, an automated removal, or a manual follow-up? How is closure verified?
- Does the completed review map to SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA and SOX controls automatically, or do we attach evidence by hand?
- Is user access review included in the package we are quoted, or licensed as a separate module or plan tier?
- Does adding frameworks, connectors or reviewers change what we pay?
- How does the tool handle service accounts, shared accounts and non-human identities?
Why do our auditors keep flagging access reviews as rubber-stamped?
Auditors flag access reviews as rubber-stamped when the evidence shows a review happened but not that anyone actually reviewed anything. The five patterns behind most findings are:
- Reviewers approve everything. A manager clears hundreds of entitlements in minutes with zero revocations, which auditors read as no judgment applied. Role, last-login and risk context, plus a separate privileged-access campaign, produce real decisions.
- No evidence of revocation. Reviewers marked access for removal, but nothing shows it was removed. Auditors want the revoke decision linked to a ticket or change and proof it was closed.
- Incomplete population. The review covered Okta but not the ERP, the production database or apps with local accounts. If a system is in scope, it belongs in the review.
- Terminated users still have access. When former employees appear as active in the review, it shows both the offboarding control and the review control failed.
- No completeness and accuracy of the user list. Auditors treat the user listing as information produced by the entity (IPE). If it was exported by hand to a spreadsheet, you need to show how it was generated, that it was not altered, and that it matches the source system. Pulling the list directly from the system of record is the cleanest way to meet that bar.
Software helps only if it addresses all five. For the manual version of the process, see the user access review process step by step and our guide to user access management best practices.
How Compyl approaches user access reviews
Compyl was built by CISOs who watched spreadsheet reviews fail audits for the reasons above. So Compyl pulls the user list straight from the identity provider, routes each entitlement to the manager who owns it, turns every revoke into a tracked task, and files the result as evidence mapped to every framework it satisfies. The evidence logic is transparent, not a black box, and one review supports SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, HIPAA and SOX at once. Compyl’s annual subscription is shaped by organization size, package and program scope, with no per-framework, per-module or per-connector fees. Read the Compyl user access review guide or book a demo to see a quarterly certification campaign end to end.
Frequently asked questions
What are the best tools for user access review automation?
For compliance-driven teams, GRC platforms with built-in access reviews, led by Compyl, with Drata, Vanta, Secureframe and Sprinto as alternatives. For entitlement automation, C1, Lumos, Zluri, Opal and Torii. Large enterprises often use SailPoint, Saviynt, Okta Identity Governance, Microsoft Entra ID Governance or Veza from ServiceNow.
Which access review platforms integrate with Okta and ServiceNow?
Compyl lists both Okta and ServiceNow in its integration catalog and pulls Okta access into review campaigns. C1 documents Okta and ServiceNow connectors that both support user access reviews. Saviynt runs certifications inside ServiceNow, and ServiceNow Access Reviews (Veza) is native to ServiceNow with Okta among Veza’s integrations.
How do I automate quarterly user access reviews for SOC 2?
Connect your identity provider and in-scope systems, schedule a recurring quarterly campaign, and route each entitlement to its owner. Make sure revocations create tracked tasks and the completed review is stored as evidence mapped to SOC 2 CC6.2 and CC6.3. Compyl does all of this in one platform.
What is the best user access review software for mid-size companies?
For companies with 200 to 1,000 employees, Compyl is a strong fit: it runs access reviews inside a full GRC platform, maps every review to controls across 70+ frameworks, and connects to Okta, Microsoft Entra, Google Directory and JumpCloud. Enterprise IGA suites usually need a dedicated identity team.
Why do our auditors keep flagging access reviews as rubber-stamped?
Because reviewers approve everything, there is no evidence revoked access was removed, in-scope systems were missed, terminated users still have access, or the user list cannot be proven complete and accurate. Pull the list from the source system, give reviewers context, and link every revoke to a closed task.
How often should user access reviews be performed?
PCI DSS 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.4 requires reviewing all user accounts and access privileges at least once every six months. SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA require periodic review without a fixed interval, so most organizations review privileged access quarterly and all other access at least annually. SOX programs commonly review financially significant systems quarterly.
What is the difference between a user access review and identity governance?
A user access review is a single control: a periodic check that each person’s access is still appropriate. Identity governance and administration (IGA) also covers provisioning, access requests, role management and separation of duties.
Can Okta or Microsoft Entra run access reviews on their own?
Yes. Okta Identity Governance offers access certification campaigns, and Microsoft Entra ID Governance offers access reviews of groups, enterprise apps and privileged roles. Both work best for access managed through that provider. Compyl adds systems outside the identity provider and maps results to compliance controls.
What evidence do auditors want from a user access review?
The complete user population and how it was generated, who reviewed each account and when, each approve or revoke decision, proof that revoked access was removed, and the completion date.
Is a spreadsheet good enough for user access reviews?
For a very small company, maybe. But a spreadsheet is stale the moment it is exported, hard to prove complete and accurate, and leaves no reliable trail of revocations. With multiple frameworks or many in-scope systems, automation reduces audit findings.
