Every vendor The Perimeter has put under the microscope, ranked by composite score. Click any vendor to jump straight to the full dossier — pitch vs. reality, community pulse, and the signal read.
| # | Vendor | Verdict | Composite | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
SailPoint
|
The leader just fixed its biggest weakness | 8.6 | → |
| 2 |
Okta
|
Strong recovery — trust is the open question | 7.4 | → |
| 3 |
Omada
|
Quietly excellent, deliberately narrow | 7.1 | → |
| 4 |
Microsoft Entra
|
Unbeatable core, incomplete governance | 7.0 | → |
| 5 |
Idira (CyberArk)
|
Best-in-class PAM, incomplete identity stack | 6.8 | → |
| 6 |
Veza
|
Excellent product, troubled engine, new owner | 6.7 | → |
| 7 |
C1 (ConductorOne)
|
Strong product, strained engine, obvious target | 6.6 | → |
| 8 |
Saviynt
|
Capable on paper — do your homework | 6.5 | → |
| 9 |
Linx Security
|
Sharp challenger, thin track record | 6.5 | → |
| 10 |
CrowdStrike (identity, via SGNL)
|
Strong runtime authorization, not yet true governance | 6.3 | → |
| 11 |
Lumos
|
Strong mid-market IGA, likely acquisition target | 6.0 | → |
| 12 |
One Identity
|
Capable portfolio, unsettled ownership | 5.5 | → |
Each score comes from that issue's Vendor Spotlight — synthesized from G2, Gartner Peer Insights, Glassdoor, practitioner forums, vendor financials, and (where relevant) litigation and incident records. Full sourcing and methodology notes live in each dossier.
Composite is a simple average of that vendor's four axes. We don't smooth or curve it, and a vendor with unusual axes (like Okta's "Trust & Track Record", Linx's "Evidence Depth", or Entra's separate Core Auth and Governance scores) is averaged as-is — which can make comparisons across very different vendors imperfect. A young challenger with thin public review volume and a 20-year incumbent are not measured on quite the same terms, even at the same composite score. Read the dossier, not just the number.
This index is not sponsored. No vendor pays for placement, a score, or a ranking position.