Why QueGuard
Start from what the job requires
Identity buying usually starts with a grid of vendors. We think it should start with the work — the handful of things any identity platform has to get right before the logo on it matters. Here they are, and here is where we stand on each.
One record for every identity
People, and the agents and services that now outnumber them, governed from a single record — not three directories that quietly disagree.
Govern access, not just grant it
Recertification, separation of duties and least privilege as defaults, so access is reviewed and removed as reliably as it is handed out.
Privileged access under the same roof
Standing and just-in-time access brokered, recorded and reconciled against the same governance — not a vault bolted on beside it.
Evidence an auditor accepts
One trail across every capability, exported without a fortnight of stitching spreadsheets together the week before the audit.
Deploy where the data must live
Our cloud, your cloud, or air-gapped in your own datacentre. The requirement decides the model, not a billing preference.
Secure the surface you just grew
AI agents get an identity and short-lived access instead of a long-lived key — the same governance, extended to non-human identity.
No lock-in
Standard protocols in, your data out on demand, export written into the contract. Consolidation should not become capture.
One platform, many businesses
Separate operating companies or clients kept genuinely isolated, governed by one team from one place.
The buying case
Why anyone actually signs
Not because a grid had more filled-in dots. Because the estate gets smaller, the reviews get shorter, and the data stays where it has to.
Fewer vendors, smaller surface
Every vendor is a trust relationship and an integration bill. Retiring four contracts removes four attack surfaces, four renewals and four audit scopes at once.
Consolidation without capture
The usual objection to one platform is lock-in. Every edge here speaks the standards your estate already speaks, and data export is written into the contract — so leaving stays cheap.
Yours to run
If your regulator, your board or your market demands the data stays in your building, that decides it — and most converged options simply cannot.
The cost of the status quo
The stack you have is not free. It costs in licences, in the people who maintain the joins between tools, and in the quarter your team loses to every access review.
Measured against what you retire
We model savings conservatively — against the vendors you actually remove, never against the list price of the ones you keep. You should hear the smaller number.
Where we don’t lead
Stated up front, not in the footnotes
If one of these is your deciding factor, we would rather say so now than three months into a trial. A startup that only lists its strengths is hiding the rest.
- Catalogue size. If the decision rests on the longest list of pre-built app or agent integrations, an incumbent wins it. Our edge is unified delivery in your environment, not exclusivity.
- Best-of-breed mandates. Very large organisations required to multi-source are not our fight.
- Deep single-category analytics. The largest, most demanding teams may still want a specialist alongside us.
- Maturing areas. Our own posture scoring and key handling are still developing, and we say so in the room.
- Track record. We are younger than the names you know. We answer that with your data in your environment and a contract that makes leaving cheap — not with claims.
See the detailed capability comparison — SailPoint, Okta, Entra, CyberArk, Ping
This is our own read, not an independent benchmark. The market moves monthly — capabilities ship and companies get acquired between updates — so treat it as a starting point and ask us to re-verify any row on a call. Landscape checked July 2026. Each incumbent would draw this grid to its own advantage; so, in fairness, have we.
| Capability | SailPoint | Okta | MS Entra | CyberArk | Ping | QueGuard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governance & recertification | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ○ | ◐ | ● |
| Separation of duties & risk scoring | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ○ | ◐ | ● |
| Single sign-on | ◐ | ● | ● | ○ | ● | ● |
| Multi-factor & passkeys | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● |
| Privileged access & vaulting | ○ | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ○ | ● |
| Session recording | ○ | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ● |
| Directory & network access | ○ | ◐ | ◐ | ○ | ◐ | ● |
| AI-agent identity | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● |
| Runs in your own datacentre | ◐ | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ● |
| Many clients, one deployment | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ● |
The honest read on AI-agent security
It is table stakes now, not a differentiator, and we will not pretend otherwise. CyberArk shipped agent security in December 2025, Ping in March 2026, Okta and Microsoft Entra both in April 2026, and SailPoint’s lands this summer. The market is consolidating around it too: Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of CyberArk in February 2026, and SailPoint acquired Entro Security in June.
That consolidation is the argument for our thesis, not against it. Our edge is how we deliver it — in your own environment if you want, joined up with recertification and privileged access in one place. The cloud-only providers cannot match the deployment model, and the one incumbent that could is now part of a larger platform’s roadmap.
Vs the governance vendors
SailPoint and Saviynt do governance well, then send you elsewhere for sign-on, MFA, privileged access and the directory. We include them — and we run in your datacentre.
Vs the access vendors
Okta and Entra own the front door. They do not own real governance or full privileged access, and they cannot run where you keep regulated data.
Vs the privileged-access vendors
CyberArk secures the keys. We govern the whole cycle around them, so privileged access is certified and reconciled rather than only brokered.