Every category where a model named AccessOwl for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Identity governance	Identity and access	2%	14 of 77	0%	7	under 10 labels · led by Lumos at 20%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for AccessOwl yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated AccessOwl across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	1	2
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct7 labels3

Paraphrase11 labels4

Comparative8 labels7not counted in share

Budget-constrained12 labels7

Scale-constrained3 labels2

Negative4 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative45 labels in all, every segment counted; 16 of the 26 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Best for SMBs (50\u2013500 Employees): AccessOwl ... is highly cost-effective” Gemini 3.5 Flash · IGA · budget prompt · first choice

“Best Low-Cost Commercial Options ... AccessOwl - Best for: Small IT teams (1–5 people)” Kimi K2 · IGA · budget prompt · alternative

“Choose AccessOwl if your team is small and wants a lightweight, lower-cost rollout.” Perplexity Sonar · IGA · budget prompt · alternative

“AccessOwl (Best for small/lean IT teams) ... Priced from ~$4.50/user/month” DeepSeek V4 Flash · IGA · budget prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as AccessOwl, over the 45 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and AccessOwl was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

SailPoint32 of 450Not in the top three

Saviynt Enterprise Identity Cloud26 of 450Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra ID Governance23 of 454Not in the top three

Okta Identity Governance22 of 452Not in the top three

JumpCloud19 of 455Not in the top three

Lumos19 of 450Not in the top three

Iden16 of 454Not in the top three

ConductorOne13 of 451Not in the top three

One Identity Manager9 of 450Not in the top three

tenfold8 of 451Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named AccessOwl. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 39 of the 45 answers that named AccessOwl and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

accessowl.comYour site39

corma.io25

idenhq.com24

lumos.com22

gartner.com20

solutionsreview.com20

aimultiple.com19

expertinsights.com17

zluri.com17

oneidentity.com13

177 of the 216 domain citations in answers naming AccessOwl came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

accessowl.com/blog/buyers-guide-for-iga-tools-by-team-size39

gartner.com/reviews/market/identity-governance-administration20

aimultiple.com/iga-solutions19

solutionsreview.com/identity-management/the-best-identity-governance-tools-and-vendors-219

corma.io/blog/best-iga-solutions-for-mid-market-companies17

idenhq.com/en/blog/identity-governance-and-administration-complete16

idenhq.com/en/blog/12-best-iga-vendors-in-2026-complete-comparison15

corma.io/blog/top-10-iam-solutions-for-smbs-and-mid-size-companies-202614

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when AccessOwl's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as AccessOwl, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at accessowl.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.