If you’re a ConductorOne customer, you’ve likely found yourself asking, “Is that all you can tell me?” Sure, they have a decent library of connectors, but they are all surface level. When you set up a Google Cloud connector, you start to get a picture, but then you need to connect to Google Looker, and connect again to Google BigQuery before you have the full view of entitlements across your GCP environment. Even then, there is no way to find out if any of your privileged users are doing what they’re permitted to do. That’s not least privilege; it’s just an inventory.
Modern identity risk doesn’t come from people asking for access.
It comes from what access exists long after nobody is looking.
Both ConductorOne and Trustle aim to reduce identity risk, but they start from very different assumptions about where that risk lives.
ConductorOne is built around access requests and approvals.
Trustle is built around continuously proving least privilege.
ConductorOne helps teams track who requested access, who approved it, and when it should expire. Trustle does that too, but it goes further.
Trustle answers the question auditors, CISOs, and incident responders actually ask:
Who can do what right now across our cloud estate, and can you prove it’s the minimum required?
ConductorOne documents intent and helps you explain how access should work.
Trustle verifies reality and proves how access does work.
ConductorOne attempts to simplify access requests, particularly through Slack-based workflows. It works for:
Governance is largely driven by:
This works, until access starts to drift…
Trustle starts from a different place: discovering and understanding every entitlement that already exists.
Rather than assuming access only comes through approved workflows, Trustle continuously analyzes:
Requests (Slack/Teams), just-in-time access, and revocation are outcomes of that intelligence, not the foundation.
| Capability | ConductorOne | Trustle |
|---|---|---|
| Core focus | Access requests and approvals | Continuous entitlement governance |
| Entitlement discovery | Connector-based, role-level visibility | Deep effective-access modelling |
| Cloud IAM depth (AWS, Azure, GCP) | Abstracted, limited policy awareness | Native, policy-level understanding |
| Effective vs assigned permissions | Assigned only | Assigned vs. used comparison |
| Zero Standing Privilege (ZSP) | Time-bound standing access | True zero standing privilege |
| Just-in-time access | Approval-driven, temporary grants | Entitlement-driven, automatically revoked |
| Approval workflows & self-provisioning | Approval-centric workflows relying on manual requests and reviewer decisions | Entitlement-aware workflows with self-provisioning and automatic access decisions |
| Lifecycle management (Joiner/Mover/Leaver) | Workflow-dependent | Continuous, entitlement-aware |
| Orphaned access detection | Limited | Built-in and automatic |
| Non-human identities | Supported but secondary | First-class citizens |
| Machine and agent access | Minimal governance | Designed for automation and agentic AI access |
| Integrations | Broad but largely import-based | Deep, bidirectional enforcement |
| Audit readiness | Approval evidence | Continuous, audit-ready proof |
| Risk drift over time | Likely | Actively prevented |
ConductorOne can be a fair choice if:
Trustle is built for organizations that:
Trustle is designed to surface, control, and eliminate that risk: continuously.
With it’s clean and easy to use UI and ongoing audit evidence collation, Trustle is simpler because it removes decisions, reviews, and clean-up work. Not because it hides complexity behind approvals.
