Every category where a model named Lumos 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	20%	1 of 77	0%	23	accepted challenger
Workforce identity and SSO	Identity and access	0%	18 of 48	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Entra ID at 36%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Lumos 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 Lumos across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	2	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	3	0	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	1	0	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	2	1	0	3
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	2	3	0	5
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	3	0	0	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1

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

Direct19 labels8

Paraphrase10 labels3

Comparative13 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained11 labels6

Negative8 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative63 labels in all, every segment counted; 17 of the 20 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.

“modern, SaaS-first options like Lumos, Zluri, Linx, Opal Security, and Iden (AI-native, universal connectors, ~$5/user/month, built for your segment)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · IGA · scale prompt · first choice

“Lumos or Zluri currently represent the best balance of features, ease of deployment, and operational simplicity” MiniMax M2.5 · IGA · direct prompt · first choice

“Lumos – Best for mid-market companies focused on automating access requests and approvals across SaaS applications” Mistral Small · IGA · direct prompt · first choice

“Lumos — best overall for mid-market SaaS-heavy companies that want automated access requests/approvals” DeepSeek V4 Flash · IGA · direct prompt · first choice

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 Lumos, over the 63 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Lumos was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Saviynt Enterprise Identity Cloud49 of 632Not in the top three

SailPoint45 of 636Not in the top three

Okta Identity Governance40 of 631Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra ID Governance32 of 632Compare →

Zluri25 of 631Not in the top three

One Identity Manager23 of 631Not in the top three

ConductorOne22 of 633Not in the top three

AccessOwl19 of 6311Not in the top three

Omada Identity16 of 631Not in the top three

JumpCloud14 of 636Not 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 Lumos. 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 51 of the 63 answers that named Lumos and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

corma.io39

gartner.com38

lumos.comYour site31

solutionsreview.com27

idenhq.com26

expertinsights.com23

accessowl.com22

aimultiple.com22

linx.security20

zluri.com19

236 of the 267 domain citations in answers naming Lumos came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/identity-governance-administration37

corma.io/blog/best-iga-solutions-for-mid-market-companies31

solutionsreview.com/identity-management/the-best-identity-governance-tools-and-vendors-225

accessowl.com/blog/buyers-guide-for-iga-tools-by-team-size22

aimultiple.com/iga-solutions22

expertinsights.com/identity-and-access-management/top-identity-governance-and-administrati22

linx.security/blog/top-10-iga-tools-a-modern-identity-governance-buyers-guide18

corma.io/blog/top-10-iam-solutions-for-smbs-and-mid-size-companies-202616

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 Lumos'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 Lumos, 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 lumos.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.