Governance
Cross-app
GRC Lead

See what every peer in the same role has before deciding what to grant or revoke in your next review

Summary: Reviewers can't certify access responsibly without knowing what their role peers hold — but manually cross-referencing peer access across dozens of apps is impractical. Oleria, an AI-native identity security & governance platform, solves this with continuous peer group access analysis surfaced inline on every review line, showing coverage percentage and driving an AI recommendation so reviewers stop guessing and start deciding on evidence.

Why this is hard without Oleria

Most access reviews ask the reviewer to certify entitlements one by one with no context. Did the user need this access? Compared to whom? The reviewer doesn't know — so they approve to avoid breaking work. The review completes; the access set never narrows.

Peer comparison is the obvious answer, and it's what good IGA program leads have always wanted. Doing it manually means cross-referencing thirty role-holders across twenty apps before every review cycle. Most teams give up. Oleria computes the peer comparison continuously and surfaces it inline as the input to every line's recommendation.

AT A GLANCE

Peer signal
Per-line coverage %
Driven by peer signal
Recommendation
Low-coverage lines, not bulk
Reviewer focus

Oleria AI

Oleria's AI computes peer-group access continuously and presents the comparison inline. Peer coverage is one of three signals that feed the per-line recommendation — alongside Dormant Days and HR Changes. Reviewers see what's normal and the recommendation it drives, without leaving the review screen.

How it works

  1. Define peer attributes — Default is title + department + location; configurable per organization.
  2. Oleria computes peer coverage — Continuously, across every connected app and every identity.
  3. Reviewers see context inline — Per-line peer coverage % and the recommended decision it drives.
  4. Decisions captured — Reviewer's choice plus peer signal, in the audit trail.

What good looks like

Reviewer time on routine lines Minutes → seconds

Low-coverage lines surfaced As recommendations, not separate flags

Access actually narrowed by review Materially up

Audit findings on review depth Eliminated

See peer-group analysis in action across your access review campaigns.

Peer comparison is what good IGA programs have always wanted — and what most tools can't deliver at scale. Oleria computes it continuously and surfaces it inline on every review line. See how it changes what reviewers do.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does peer-group analysis affect compliance?

It strengthens the control — every decision shows the comparison the reviewer made it against.

Can peer attributes be overridden per app or per review?

Yes. Campaigns can scope to different attribute sets per organization configuration.

What if the user is in a unique role with no real peers?

When peer data is sparse, the peer signal is shown as insufficient data and the reviewer falls back to usage and HR change signals.

How does peer coverage drive the recommendation?

When peer coverage is low, Oleria's recommendation is Reject or Needs review. When peer coverage is high, the recommendation is Approve.

What's a peer group?

The set of identities sharing job-attribute combinations Oleria reads from HRIS — typically title or department or location. Peer attributes are configurable per organization.