Corma versus AccessOwl
Looking for a more holistic alternative to AccessOwl?
Choosing the right identity and access management platform can make or break your organization’s security posture and operational efficiency. With SaaS adoption exploding and remote work becoming the norm, managing who has access to what has never been more critical—but not just anyone can handle the complexity of modern enterprise needs.Both Corma and AccessOwl offer unique approaches to access management, each with distinct strengths that cater to different organizational priorities. This guide breaks down the key differences, helping you determine which platform fits your specific business requirements.
.png)
AccessOwl, founded in 2021 and headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a SaaS access governance and management platform designed to simplify how organizations manage employee access to applications, automate onboarding and offboarding workflows, centralize SaaS spend and vendor data, and improve security and compliance across the software stack. The platform integrates with hundreds of apps and supports access requests, approvals, reviews, and spend visibility without requiring traditional identity provider infrastructure.
Small and Mid‑sized businesses
Philip Eller and Mathias Nestler in Berlin, Germany
The Comparison
Corma addresses what many IT leaders call the “SaaS sprawl” problem—the uncontrolled proliferation of applications across departments that leads to security blind spots and wasted spending.AccessOwl, by contrast, offers a broader identity ecosystem approach. It’s designed for organizations needing enterprise iam software solution capabilities that extend across common software categories and system types, not just cloud applications.
SaaS management & license
Comprehensive identity governance
“Death by a Thousand SaaS”
Broad access control & compliance
Cloud-first SaaS application
All system types
Cost optimization through license administration
Audit & risk assessment dept
These results reflect performance improvements achieved through the use of Corma for SaaS management and automation.
Automation
employees onboarded and offboarded automatically
Time spent
spent less with Corma per week for management
Cost Efficiency
saved monthly by optimizing SaaS licences
Implementation Requirements Overview
Understanding what each platform demands for successful deployment helps set realistic expectations.
Corma Implementation Considerations:
- SaaS environment mapping and inventory creation
- Integration with existing identity management systems
- License tracking setup and renewal calendar configuration
- Change management for self-service adoption
- Training for app owners and IT administrators
AccessOwl Implementation Considerations:
- Comprehensive identity governance framework design
- Compliance requirement alignment and documentation
- Audit preparation and baseline establishment
- Integration across cloud directory platform and on-premises systems
- User training on certification workflows
Pricing and Business Model
The pricing reflects each platform’s target audience:
Corma: Designed for growing IT teams and mid-sized organizations, Corma focuses on delivering ROI through automated SaaS governance, license optimization, and operational efficiency. Pricing is available on request and structured to remain accessible without the overhead or complexity of enterprise-heavy platforms.
AccessOwl: Geared toward organizations needing broad SaaS governance, AccessOwl starts at $2.50/month per user. The platform focuses on access control, automated provisioning, and license visibility, making it a cost-effective solution for teams prioritizing security, compliance, and centralized SaaS management.
What makes Corma more secure than AccessOwl?
Corma emphasizes SaaS identity and access controls; AccessOwl emphasizes broader access governance.
How do Corma and AccessOwl differ on spend control?
Corma reduces SaaS license waste directly; AccessOwl tracks app access and permissions.
Can Corma help with EU data privacy better than AccessOwl?
Yes, Corma’s EU‑focused controls support GDPR; AccessOwl focuses on access governance.
Which scales better for SMBs?
Corma is streamlined for SMEs; AccessOwl suits larger orgs with complex app portfolios.
