Iden vs ConductorOne (C1)
A detailed guide to Iden vs ConductorOne: connector depth, access review control, cost, and when each solution fits your stack.
10 min read · Last updated April 2026
ConductorOne, now C1, built something genuinely better than legacy IGA - Slack-native access requests, open-source Baton connectors, real IaaS depth. What it doesn’t do is provision everything automatically. A significant portion of its 300+ connectors run in read-only mode: they can surface access for reviews, but remediation falls back to a Jira or ServiceNow ticket a human has to close. That’s the gap. This guide covers what each does well, where each falls short, and how to pick.
When to choose C1
C1 is a genuine step up from legacy IGA. It fits well when your stack is SCIM-capable and you have engineering bandwidth for connector work. Worth reading before you sign.
- —
Your stack is primarily cloud-native SaaS and most apps are already on enterprise tiers with SCIM enabled.
- —
Slack-native access requests are a priority - your team lives in Slack and hates context-switching to portals.
- —
Jira or ServiceNow is your system of record for provisioning. C1's helpdesk bridge is genuinely well-built for this.
- —
You have an in-house engineering team willing to build and maintain custom Baton SDK connectors.
- —
Your IaaS footprint is AWS, GCP, or Azure-heavy - C1's cloud infra connector depth is real.
- —
You want open-source connector extensibility and the ability to contribute back to the Baton ecosystem.
When to choose Iden
Most teams hit C1’s read-only connector ceiling faster than expected. If you’ve tried to automate provisioning for a niche SaaS tool and ended up with a Jira ticket instead, you already know the problem.
- —
You need full automated provisioning across your stack - not just visibility. Read-only connectors that fall back to a Jira ticket aren't governance, they're a reminder.
- —
You have non-SCIM apps, internal tools, or legacy systems. Iden builds the connector in 48 hours. Your team doesn't touch it.
- —
On-prem systems or mainframes are in scope. C1 doesn't document mainframe support; Iden covers all of it.
- —
You need access review remediation beyond remove-only. Iden lets reviewers modify access during a campaign, not just flag it for removal.
- —
No engineering bandwidth for Baton SDK work. Iden absorbs connector build and maintenance - no open-source SDK required.
- —
Your contractor or vendor population doesn't live in an HRIS or connected directory. Iden handles lifecycle without that dependency.
- —
NHI governance needs to cover service accounts, API keys, OAuth grants, and AI agents in the same place as human identities.
- —
~70% of your stack locks SCIM behind enterprise tiers. C1 relies on SCIM where apps expose it - same forced upgrades as any enterprise IGA. Iden provisions on standard plans.
- —
You want flat published pricing without a sales cycle. $7.50/user/mo. No quote required.
Already using C1?Iden runs alongside it. Most teams run parallel for 30-60 days, extending coverage to apps C1 can’t provision, then cut over when ready.
Where they differ
The shared ground ends there. Coverage, control, and cost are the three areas where C1’s constraints become visible.
1. Iden provisions. C1 tickets.
C1 advertises 300+ connectors via its open-source Baton framework. That number is real - but it conflates two very different modes. Every connector supports read-only: syncing access data for visibility and certifications. Only a subset support read-write provisioning. For apps in read-only mode, C1 raises a Jira or ServiceNow ticket when access needs to change. A human closes it.
Iden uses 180+ connectors: SCIM where it’s available, API-based where it isn’t, custom-built in under 48 hours where neither exists. All connectors are read-write by default. First 15 apps in under an hour. Anything outside the catalog, Iden builds the connector - not your engineers.
Every Iden connector can provision and deprovision. No fallback to manual tickets for remediation.
C1's Baton SDK lets your engineers build custom connectors. Iden builds them in <48 hr - your team doesn't touch it.
C1 requires self-hosted agent infrastructure the customer maintains. Iden covers all systems including mainframes natively.
Service accounts, API keys, OAuth grants, AI agents - governed in the same dashboard as your people.
Coverage gets you connected. Control is where the real governance work happens - and where C1’s constraints start to compound.
2. Access reviews that modify, not just remove.
C1’s access review model is remove-only. During a certification campaign, reviewers can flag access for removal. They can’t downgrade permissions, change roles, or modify what someone has - only revoke entirely. That’s a real constraint when the right answer is “keep access, but at read-only instead of admin.”
Slack and email notifications in C1 are functional but described by users as rigid - customization options are limited. For teams that want campaign reminders or approval flows tuned to their process, this creates friction.
Permission granularity also depends on connector fidelity. Where a Baton connector surfaces only group-level data, certifications stay at group level. Where connectors expose entitlement-level permissions, C1 can govern more precisely. It’s connector-dependent.
Iden resolves at entitlement level across the board. Reviewers can modify or remove. SOD runs across the full portfolio regardless of connector. No engineering team needed to maintain connectors or agent infrastructure.
The capability gaps are one thing. Cost is where they show up - and where C1’s pricing opacity becomes its own problem.
3. Flat pricing vs Talk to us.
C1 has no public pricing. Based on third-party procurement data from Vendr and TrustRadius, average annual contracts run $12,000-$14,000 for smaller deployments, with mid-market deals reaching $20,000+. Enterprise pricing at 500+ users scales significantly beyond that. Every engagement starts with a quote.
There’s a secondary cost most evaluations miss: if your non-SCIM apps need custom Baton connector builds, that’s engineering time C1 doesn’t absorb. Their docs say connectors can be built in "a few days" - but that means your engineers, not theirs, and there’s no committed SLA.
The hidden cost: what C1 doesn’t absorb
When a connector is read-only, access review remediation creates a ticket a human closes. That’s manual overhead at scale.
Iden: $7.50/u/mo. All connectors read-write. Iden builds custom connectors. No sales cycle.
Then there’s the SCIM tax. C1 relies on SCIM where apps support it - which means the same forced tier upgrades as any enterprise IGA. Iden provisions on standard plans. No upgrades, no hidden multiplier on renewal.
SCIM Tax: applies to C1 too
C1 uses SCIM where apps expose it. That means the same forced upgrades: ~70% of your stack locks SCIM behind enterprise tiers.
On a 300-person team, the Figma upgrade alone is +$22,200/year. Just for automated provisioning.
Iden works on standard plans. No upgrades required.
Iden starts at $7.50/user/mo and gets cheaper with scale. All connectors are read-write by default. Iden absorbs custom connector builds on a committed <48 hr SLA. No engineering dependency for your team. No magical pricing, just transparent.
What practitioners say about ConductorOne
“This is a new product offering and doesn't have all the functionality of a tool that has been in the market for 10 years. That said, the development velocity of the team gives me confidence that the product will keep pace with evolving needs.”
“I would like to see the ability to modify access on reviews versus removing from the profile/resource.”
“Notifications from a Slack and email perspective are a little rigid and it would be nice to be customizable.”
“A desire for more integrations to enhance its functionality.”
“Can be expensive, particularly for small businesses with limited budgets.”
What Iden customers say
“We govern Notion, Figma, Linear, and our internal tools. All in one place. ConductorOne couldn't provision half of them automatically.”
“We finally have access reviews where we can modify permissions, not just remove. That changed how useful our certification campaigns actually are.”
“No one on our team touched the Baton SDK. Iden built the connector for our internal tool in two days. That alone was worth the switch.”
“First 12 apps connected in under an hour. We were live before our ConductorOne POC had finished implementation.”
How to choose between Iden and C1
Depends on your stack and your team. C1 fits well if it’s cloud-native, SCIM-capable, and you have engineering bandwidth for Baton connector work. Iden fits everything else.
Want the full breakdown?
The complete feature-by-feature comparison - Coverage, Control, and Cost - in one reference document. Every C1 connector constraint, every Iden capability, side by side. Useful for vendor evaluations, internal presentations, and budget conversations.
Download the comparison PDFNo form. Direct download.
A few things worth saying directly
C1 has 300+ connectors. Doesn't that cover everything?
300+ connectors for visibility - yes. Not all support read-write provisioning. For apps in read-only mode, access review remediation creates a Jira or ServiceNow ticket that a human closes. That's a meaningful distinction when you need automated deprovisioning at scale.
What's the Baton SDK and why does it matter for Iden vs C1?
Baton is C1's open-source connector framework. Your engineers use it to build custom connectors for apps not in their catalog. It works, but it requires Go engineering time and no committed SLA from C1. Iden builds custom connectors for you in under 48 hours. Your team doesn't touch it.
We already have C1. Do we have to rip it out to use Iden?
No. Most teams run parallel for 30-60 days. Iden handles apps C1 can't provision automatically - non-SCIM tools, legacy systems, anything in read-only mode. You cut over when you're ready.
C1 just raised $79M. Aren't they investing fast?
They are. The product is moving quickly and the team is genuinely responsive. If you need capabilities that aren't there yet - on-prem coverage, NHI depth, access review modification, non-SCIM automated provisioning - Iden closes that gap now, not on the roadmap.
We have a SOC 2 audit in 3 months. Is that enough time?
Yes. Most Iden customers are audit-ready within 2 weeks of go-live. Audit evidence for access reviews, tasks, and access changes is available in real-time, not point-in-time.