Astrix vs. Oasis
Astrix and Oasis are the two most frequently co-evaluated dedicated NHI governance platforms — both discover, inventory, and remediate non-human identities across cloud and SaaS, and both have expanded their scope significantly over the past two years. The surface-level similarity is real. The architectural difference is where each platform started: Astrix built its core competency in SaaS-to-SaaS OAuth and third-party app integrations, then expanded to cloud and on-prem; Oasis started from cloud and hybrid-infrastructure coverage, then expanded into SaaS and AI-agent governance. Which one fits depends less on what each platform covers today and more on which direction your own NHI risk skews.
| Criteria | Astrix Security | Oasis Security |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture and scope | ||
| Origin | SaaS-to-SaaS OAuth discovery and third-party app governance | Cloud and hybrid-infrastructure NHI visibility across IaaS, PaaS, on-prem |
| SaaS integration coverage | Core strength — maps OAuth grants, token sprawl, and shadow SaaS connections across business applications | Growing — added SaaS coverage as a secondary surface after establishing cloud/on-prem foundations |
| Cloud infrastructure coverage | Expanded to cloud and on-prem; competitors have closed the gap on SaaS while this expansion has been underway | Core strength — service accounts, service principals, IAM roles across AWS, Azure, GCP and on-prem |
| AI agent governance | Available — agent discovery and OAuth scope visibility for AI service integrations | Dedicated product (Oasis AAM) — full agentic access management with intent inference, least-privilege enforcement, prompt-level audit trail |
| Discovery and inventory | ||
| Discovery method | API-based — connects to SaaS platforms, cloud providers, and identity systems via native integrations | API-based — auto-discovers NHIs across IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, vaults, and CI/CD tools |
| Shadow SaaS detection | Identifies integrations added without IT approval; purpose-built capability from initial product design | Covered but less architecturally central than cloud identity discovery |
| Token and OAuth visibility | Detailed per-token risk analysis: scope, permissions, last-used date, revocation automation where the SaaS API supports it | Covered as part of broader NHI inventory; depth depends on platform and API availability |
| Outage prevention | Flags dependencies but outage prevention is not a primary design goal | Explicitly designed to prevent outages during remediation — tracks which NHIs are load-bearing before any revocation |
| Lifecycle management | ||
| Rotation and remediation | Automated revocation of unused tokens where SaaS APIs allow; ITSM ticket integration for approval workflows | Automated lifecycle — provisioning, rotation, and decommissioning with policy enforcement |
| Provisioning controls | Governance-oriented — monitors what's been provisioned; less focused on provisioning policy enforcement at creation | NHI provisioning controls ensure identities are created with correct scope and ownership from day one |
| Human ownership attribution | Maps NHIs to responsible teams or users for remediation routing | Owner attribution and accountability tracking across the NHI lifecycle |
| Integrations | ||
| ITSM / SOAR | Jira, ServiceNow, and major SOAR platforms for ticket-driven approval and remediation workflows | Jira, ServiceNow, HashiCorp Vault, cloud identity providers |
| Identity system integration | Integrates with Okta, Azure AD, and major SaaS identity providers | Integrates with AWS, Azure, GCP identity providers; strong IaaS/cloud IAM integration |
| Procurement | ||
| Pricing | Enterprise SaaS — contact for pricing | Enterprise SaaS — contact for pricing |
| Target environment | Organizations whose primary NHI risk is in SaaS application integrations, OAuth grants, and API key sprawl across business tools | Organizations with significant cloud infrastructure footprint and compliance-driven NHI governance requirements |
Capability assessments based on publicly available vendor documentation and independent coverage. Validate specific feature depth against your environment before purchase.
- Your primary NHI risk exposure is in SaaS-to-SaaS connections — third-party apps, OAuth grants, API keys across business tools like Slack, Salesforce, and GitHub
- Shadow SaaS detection is a priority — integrations added outside IT visibility are a known risk in your environment
- Token-level revocation automation matters more than lifecycle provisioning — you need to clean up what exists, not enforce how new identities are created
- Your security team works primarily through ITSM approval workflows rather than infrastructure-level policy enforcement
- The environment is predominantly SaaS-heavy with relatively fewer cloud infrastructure NHIs than application-layer ones
- Your NHI risk is concentrated in cloud infrastructure — service accounts, IAM roles, service principals across AWS, Azure, and GCP
- Outage prevention during remediation is a hard requirement — you need to know which NHIs are load-bearing before any revocation is attempted
- AI agent governance is an active requirement, not a future concern — Oasis AAM provides intent inference and prompt-level audit trails that Astrix's agent coverage does not currently match
- Provisioning policy enforcement matters as much as remediation — you want governance applied when NHIs are created, not just discovered after the fact
- Compliance-driven lifecycle automation (provisioning, rotation, decommissioning) is a primary procurement requirement
Astrix and Oasis have been converging for two years, and by 2026 the gap in raw coverage between them has narrowed significantly — both can inventory NHIs across SaaS, cloud, and on-prem. The question is architectural depth versus breadth at the layer that matters most for your environment.
If the majority of your NHI risk lives in business application integrations — OAuth grants, third-party app connections, API keys used by SaaS tools — Astrix's SaaS-native architecture gives it genuine depth at that layer that Oasis has been adding but didn't build for first. Astrix's token-level revocation automation also depends on what each SaaS API exposes, which means its effectiveness varies by application — but that constraint applies equally to any platform in this space.
If your environment is cloud-infrastructure-heavy, or if AI agent governance is an active requirement, Oasis is the stronger choice. Its outage prevention design reflects experience with organizations where NHIs are deeply embedded in production systems, and Agentic Access Management is a more complete implementation of agent identity governance than anything Astrix currently ships. For organizations in both situations — significant SaaS and significant cloud infrastructure — this becomes an environment-mapping exercise rather than a vendor-quality comparison. Both are capable; the fit depends on where your NHIs actually live.
Related: Entro vs. Clutch · GitGuardian vs. Astrix · Full vendor comparison tool