Zilla is now part of Idira—a broader identity-security platform built around privilege, IGA, machine identities, and AI agents. If your problem is access governance, solve that problem directly. SecurEnds lets you keep CyberArk PAM, Entra, Okta, and the security tools you already use while building an independent governance program around reviews, remediation, access control, identity security, and GRC.
If the business need is to get applications into scope, improve certification, prove remediation, and satisfy audit, evaluate the product against those outcomes first.
Use SecurEnds alongside CyberArk, Entra, Okta, and other identity investments rather than replacing them to improve governance.
More than 1,000 applications are already being ingested in SecurEnds production environments using multiple integration approaches.
Begin with User Access Reviews, remediation, and evidence. Add requests, lifecycle, access models, and identity security when they are needed.
Extend into IT Risk, Vendor Risk, Policy & Controls, assessments, findings, remediation, and evidence.
CyberArk acquired Zilla and its IGA technology is now positioned inside Idira, Palo Alto Networks’ broader identity-security platform. Idira explicitly brings identity governance together with privileged access and machine and agentic identity security. That may be a broader architectural commitment than your access-governance project requires.
If CyberArk is doing a good job protecting privileged accounts, keep it. Then independently evaluate which product best solves:
Zilla has public 1,000+ integration claims. SecurEnds has 1,000+ applications being ingested in production. The better question is whether your most difficult applications can be brought into the governance process your team will operate every quarter.
The people responsible for access reviews are often also responsible for the broader governance work surrounding systems, vendors, policies, controls, findings, and evidence. SecurEnds can grow with that responsibility.
Who has access? Who reviewed it? What should change?
Was the revoked access actually removed?
Requests, lifecycle, templates, SoD, and fulfillment.
Usage, NHI, service accounts, AI identities, and identity risk.
IT Risk, Vendor Risk, Policies, Controls, findings, and evidence.
A competitive evaluation should prove what happens in your environment—not which vendor has the best generic demo.
Use your connected, legacy, DB, file, API, directory, SaaS, and homegrown sources.
Compare correlation, context, campaigns, reminders, delegation, exceptions, and reviewer effort.
Follow the decision through fulfillment, ticketing, supported automation, reconciliation, and closure.
See which approach leaves your governance and audit team with the cleaner operating model.
Bring your hardest systems and one real access-review campaign. We’ll show the full process from ingestion to review, revocation, reconciliation, and evidence.
Use the applications, reviewers, remediation process, and audit requirements your team already manages. Then decide which approach actually fits the problem.