Which scores higher, Zluri or Lumos?

Neither. Both score 4.0 overall in our rubric, and the wins are split. Lumos scores higher on governance and audit at 4.5 against 4.0 and on authorization at 4.0 against 3.5. Zluri scores higher on SSO and federation at 3.5 against 3.0, on deployment flexibility at 4.0 against 3.5, and on pricing transparency at 3.5 against 3.0. Five dimensions tie, including lifecycle provisioning at 4.0, developer experience at 3.5, and support and ecosystem at 3.5. This is a genuine tie that has to be broken on fit.

Does either publish pricing?

No. Both are quote-based subscriptions with no list price on their sites, so treat the pricing transparency gap between them as a comparison of two sales-led vendors rather than a reason to expect a number. Both price against employee count and integrated applications. Lumos also argues a net cost case on the basis that its access data surfaces unused licenses and SaaS spend, which is worth testing against your own renewal data rather than accepting from a slide.

What has changed recently at each?

Lumos launched a set of Identity Security Agents on 24 March 2026, described as agents that run continuously to investigate findings and execute remediation without a person starting each fix, spanning human, non-human, and AI agent identities. Zluri now presents itself as next-generation identity governance across four modules, identity visibility and intelligence, governance and administration, identity security posture management, and a SaaS management platform, and claims a universal identity connector for applications with no native integration.

Can either replace SailPoint or Saviynt?

For a SaaS-heavy estate, often yes, and faster to deploy. For an estate with mainframes, on-premises directories, custom line-of-business applications, and separation-of-duties requirements inside an ERP, generally no. Both are newer platforms whose connector depth for legacy on-premises systems and whose certification depth for a demanding auditor trail the established suites. If your governance scope is mostly cloud applications, that gap may never surface; if it is not, it will surface in the first campaign.

Zluri vs Lumos

The honest comparison

Zluri and Lumos arrived at identity governance from opposite doors, and knowing which door explains most of the difference.

Zluri came from SaaS management. Its original job was finding every application a workforce had signed up for and what it cost, and governance grew out of that inventory. Its own site now presents four modules, identity visibility and intelligence, governance and administration, identity security posture management, and a SaaS management platform, with a universal identity connector for applications that have no native integration.

Lumos came from the access request. Its original job was an internal app store where an employee asks for access and gets it without a ticket, and governance grew out of the approval and provisioning data that produced. Its own site now describes agents that continuously govern access for human, machine, and AI identities, and on 24 March 2026 it launched Identity Security Agents, a set of agents that investigate findings and execute remediation without a person initiating each fix.

The matrix ties them at 4.0 overall, and the split is instructive rather than balanced-for-the-sake-of-it. Lumos leads governance and audit 4.5 to 4.0 and authorization 4.0 to 3.5, which is the certification and entitlement side. Zluri leads SSO and federation 3.5 to 3.0, deployment flexibility 4.0 to 3.5, and pricing transparency 3.5 to 3.0, though neither actually publishes a price. Five dimensions tie, including lifecycle provisioning at 4.0, which is where both have invested hardest.

Both have converged on the same 2026 story, which is that non-human and AI agent identities now outnumber people and nobody is certifying them. Both make that claim. Our assessment is that this is the part of either pitch to test hardest in a proof of value, because inventorying service accounts and agent credentials is much easier to demonstrate than governing them, and a demo will not show you the difference.

When Zluri wins

The honest starting position is that nobody can list the applications and accounts in use, and discovery is the first deliverable
Applications in scope have no native integration, which is what the universal identity connector exists to reach
License waste and SaaS spend are part of the business case alongside governance, which is Zluri's heritage rather than an add-on
You need flexibility in how it is deployed and integrated, where Zluri leads deployment flexibility 4.0 to 3.5

When Lumos wins

Access request tickets are the pain, and a self-service catalog with automated approval and provisioning is the fix being bought
Access certifications are rubber-stamped today, and you want the platform leading governance and audit 4.5 to 4.0
Entitlement analysis and least-privilege cleanup matter, where Lumos leads authorization 4.0 to 3.5
Automated remediation rather than another findings dashboard is the requirement, which is what the March 2026 agent launch is aimed at

Pricing

Neither publishes a list price, so read the pricing transparency scores as a narrow edge between two sales-led vendors rather than a signal that one will quote you openly. Both price against employees and integrated applications. Lumos makes a net-cost argument that its access data surfaces unused licenses; that is testable, so test it against your own renewal data before it becomes part of a business case. Zluri makes a similar argument from the SaaS management side. In both cases, ask what an application counts as, because connector counts drive these quotes more than headcount does. Model both against seats and applications in the TCO calculator.

Verdict

Choose Zluri when the first problem is visibility and the second is governance, especially with a long tail of applications nobody has integrated. Choose Lumos when the applications are already known, the pain is request handling and certification quality, and you want the higher governance score. Our assessment is that this is a genuine 4.0 to 4.0 tie and should be decided by which half of the problem is currently on fire. For the governance-and-just-in-time alternative see ConductorOne vs Lumos, and for the enterprise incumbents see SailPoint vs Saviynt.