Security & Identity Modernization Services
UpdatedZero-trust transformation and IAM modernization carry compliance risk during migration. Compare 10 specialized implementation partners, understand identity sprawl failure modes, and get the interview questions that separate genuine zero-trust expertise from marketing claims.
When to Hire Security & Identity Modernization Services
Engage external security and identity expertise when internal teams lack zero-trust architecture experience, when compliance deadlines create migration pressure, or when an audit has surfaced critical IAM findings that exceed your team's remediation bandwidth.
A security audit identified more than 3 unresolved critical findings related to identity or access management — the remediation complexity exceeds routine in-house capacity.
Legacy perimeter security cannot accommodate remote work, BYOD, or cloud workload access requirements — the architecture requires a fundamental zero-trust redesign, not incremental patching.
A compliance deadline (SOC 2, ISO 27001, FedRAMP) requires documented zero-trust architecture — regulators now expect architectural evidence, not just policy documentation.
An M&A integration is creating identity sprawl — multiple IdPs, conflicting access policies, and orphaned accounts that require consolidation before the combined entity can operate securely.
Engagement Model Matrix
| Model | Best For | Typical Cost |
|---|---|---|
| DIY | Organizations with mature security teams implementing incremental IAM improvements — MFA rollout, conditional access policies, privileged access management additions. | Internal labor + platform licensing |
| Guided | IAM vendor PSO (Okta, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto) paired with internal security team for platform migrations where architecture is defined but implementation execution needs augmentation. | $150K–$400K |
| Full-Service | Security consultancy for zero-trust architecture design, regulated industry compliance (FedRAMP, HIPAA), or post-breach remediation where both architecture and execution capacity are needed. | $400K–$2M+ |
Why Security & Identity Engagements Fail
Most IAM and zero-trust projects fail for three predictable reasons: insufficient compliance planning during migration windows, incomplete application scope that leaves legacy authentication in place, and identity governance frameworks that are never built after the IdP is deployed.
Failure Mode 1: Compliance gaps during the migration window
When migrating from legacy authentication (LDAP, legacy RADIUS) to modern IAM, there is typically a 2–4 week window where both systems run simultaneously. This dual-running period is the highest compliance risk — audit trails may be split across systems, making it impossible to produce a clean access log for a given time range.
Prevention: Define the compliance continuity plan before migration begins. Auditors must approve the dual-running approach in writing before the migration window opens.
Failure Mode 2: Identity sprawl from incomplete zero-trust rollout
Zero-trust requires every access path to be governed. Projects that modernize Tier 1 applications but leave legacy applications on the old perimeter create a false sense of security. One financial services firm discovered 40% of their critical applications were still using legacy authentication 18 months after declaring zero-trust "complete."
Prevention: Project scope must include a full application inventory and classification — not just platform replacement. Every application must be categorized before the engagement begins.
Failure Mode 3: Legacy authentication left in place alongside new systems
NTLM, basic auth, and legacy RADIUS frequently remain active "temporarily" and become permanent. The new IdP runs alongside the legacy authentication stack indefinitely, doubling the attack surface rather than reducing it.
Prevention: The decommission plan for legacy authentication protocols must be a contract deliverable with hard dates — not a best-effort objective left to the client after the engagement closes.
Vendor Intelligence
Independent comparison of cloud security implementation partners. Search all 170+ vendors.
The security services market splits between generalist consultancies with security practices (Deloitte, Accenture, IBM) and pure-play IAM specialists (iC Consult, Simeio, Okta Pro Services). Pure-play specialists typically deliver faster IAM implementations; generalists are better positioned for enterprise-wide zero-trust architecture projects.
How We Evaluate Security & Identity Vendors
Ratings reflect verified project outcomes across IAM platform migrations, zero-trust implementations, and compliance-driven security programs. We weight architecture depth (not just platform installation), compliance continuity planning quality, and identity governance framework delivery — not marketing claims or vendor certifications. Vendor sponsorship does not influence placement.
Top Cloud Security Services Companies
| Company | Specialty | Cost | Our Rating ↓ | Case Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deloitte Cyber | Enterprise Security Strategy | $$$$ | ★4.8 | 350 |
| Mandiant | Incident Response | $$$$ | ★4.8 | 1000 |
| Accenture Security | Managed Zero Trust | $$$$ | ★4.7 | 400 |
| iC Consult | Pure-Play IAM | $$$ | ★4.7 | 85 |
| Optiv | Cyber Advisory | $$$ | ★4.6 | 150 |
| IBM Security | Hybrid Cloud Security | $$$$ | ★4.5 | 220 |
| KPMG | Risk & Compliance | $$$ | ★4.5 | 180 |
| Simeio | Identity Orchestration | $$$ | ★4.4 | 60 |
| Booz Allen | Federal/High Security | $$$$ | ★4.4 | 90 |
| Okta Pro Services | Modern Auth Implementation | $$$ | ★4.3 | 500 |
Enterprise Security Strategy
Mandiant
Incident Response
Accenture Security
Managed Zero Trust
iC Consult
Pure-Play IAM
Optiv
Cyber Advisory
IBM Security
Hybrid Cloud Security
KPMG
Risk & Compliance
Simeio
Identity Orchestration
Booz Allen
Federal/High Security
Okta Pro Services
Modern Auth Implementation
Identity & Security Market Share 2026
Current IAM and cloud security platform adoption among enterprises implementing Zero Trust.
Identity & Security Market Share 2026
Vendor Selection: Red Flags & Interview Questions
Security vendors are uniquely adept at marketing claims that are difficult to verify without architectural expertise. These red flags and interview questions are designed to surface the difference between platform installers and genuine zero-trust architecture practitioners before you sign a contract.
5 Red Flags to Watch For
Red Flag 1: "We'll bolt security on after migration" — Security architecture must be first, not last. Any vendor who proposes migrating the platform first and addressing security architecture afterward is proposing a sequence that creates compliance exposure during the most vulnerable period.
Red Flag 2: No identity governance plan — How will orphaned accounts, privileged access, and lifecycle management work after go-live? A proposal without an identity governance framework is delivering a platform installation, not an IAM program.
Red Flag 3: Zero-trust claim without microsegmentation roadmap or application inventory — Zero-trust without a complete application inventory is incomplete by definition. Ask for the application classification methodology before trusting the zero-trust claim.
Red Flag 4: No compliance continuity plan for the migration window — If the vendor has not addressed how audit trails will be maintained during the dual-running period, they have not planned the migration properly.
Red Flag 5: Platform expertise only, no architecture expertise — Okta or Azure AD implementation skills are not the same as zero-trust architecture design. Ask specifically: who designs the trust boundaries and microsegmentation model before any platform is selected?
5 Interview Questions to Ask Shortlisted Vendors
| # | Question | What You're Testing |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Walk us through your zero-trust architecture methodology — how do you define trust boundaries?" | Architecture depth vs. platform sales pitch |
| 2 | "How do you manage compliance continuity during the migration window between legacy and new IAM?" | Audit trail planning and regulatory awareness |
| 3 | "What's your application inventory and classification approach — how do you scope the full attack surface?" | Whether zero-trust scope is complete or partial |
| 4 | "How do you handle legacy authentication decommission — what's the enforcement mechanism?" | Whether decommission is a deliverable or an afterthought |
| 5 | "Show us an identity governance framework you've implemented — what lifecycle events does it cover?" | Governance maturity beyond access provisioning |
What a Typical Security & Identity Engagement Looks Like
A full zero-trust transformation runs 8–10 months from assessment through legacy decommission. Projects that skip the assessment phase (weeks 1–6) and jump directly to platform implementation consistently discover scope gaps that add 3–6 months of unplanned work after go-live.
Phase 1: Assessment
Identity inventory across all directories, application classification by authentication method and risk tier, current-state architecture documentation, compliance gap analysis against target framework (SOC 2, FedRAMP, ISO 27001).
Phase 2: Architecture Design
Zero-trust architecture model, IdP selection and design, microsegmentation architecture, compliance continuity plan for the migration window, identity governance framework design.
Phase 3: Implementation Waves
Migration by application tier, starting with Tier 1 (highest risk / most critical). Parallel authentication during each migration window, with compliance continuity validated before cutover for each wave.
Phase 4: Legacy Decommission
NTLM/LDAP retirement, access policy enforcement across all application tiers, final compliance validation and audit trail consolidation, identity governance go-live.
Key Deliverables
- ✓ Identity inventory report and application classification matrix
- ✓ Zero-trust architecture design (trust boundaries, microsegmentation model)
- ✓ Compliance continuity plan (auditor-approved dual-running approach)
- ✓ Identity governance framework (lifecycle events, orphaned account policy, privilege review cadence)
- ✓ Migration runbooks per application tier
- ✓ Legacy authentication decommission plan with hard enforcement dates
Security & Identity Service Guides
Professional Zero Trust and IAM implementation services for enterprise security modernization.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1 How much does security and identity modernization cost?
IAM modernisation projects run $200K–$2M+ depending on application count, identity provider count, and regulatory requirements. A single-IdP consolidation (migrating to Okta or Azure AD) for a 500-user organisation runs $150K–$300K. Zero-trust architecture for an enterprise with 50+ applications runs $600K–$2M. Ongoing IAM platform licensing is $10–$50/user/year.
Q2 Zero-trust vs perimeter security — what's the difference?
Perimeter security assumes anything inside the network is trusted. Zero-trust assumes breach — every request is verified regardless of origin. Zero-trust requires: identity verification for every access request, device health validation, least-privilege access, and microsegmentation. The shift from perimeter to zero-trust is primarily an identity architecture project, not a firewall replacement.
Q3 How long does zero-trust implementation take?
3–9 months for foundational zero-trust (IdP modernisation, MFA enforcement, privileged access management). Full zero-trust maturity (microsegmentation, continuous device trust, data-centric security) takes 18–36 months. Projects that promise zero-trust in 6 weeks are delivering a platform installation, not an architecture transformation.
Q4 What is identity governance and why do we need it?
Identity governance manages who has access to what, and ensures that access is appropriate, current, and auditable. Without it: orphaned accounts (departed employees with active access), privilege creep (access accumulates over time), and compliance exposure (you can't prove who had access to what during an audit). Identity governance platforms (SailPoint, Saviynt) run $100K–$500K/year for enterprise deployments.
Q5 What compliance frameworks require zero-trust?
SOC 2 Type II requires evidence of access controls and monitoring that aligns with zero-trust principles. FedRAMP Moderate/High explicitly requires zero-trust architecture as of 2024. ISO 27001:2022 includes zero-trust-aligned controls. NIST 800-207 is the reference architecture for federal zero-trust requirements. Most cyber insurance policies now require MFA and privileged access management as minimum standards.
Q6 Should we consolidate to a single IdP or maintain multiple?
Single IdP is strongly preferred — it simplifies governance, reduces attack surface, and lowers licensing costs. Multiple IdPs are justified when regulatory requirements prohibit data commingling (e.g., separate directory for highly regulated data), or when M&A leaves legacy systems on separate authentication infrastructure temporarily. Target state should always be single IdP with federated trust for edge cases.