Axiom Security Break Glass Access vs Common Fate: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Axiom Security Break Glass Access

Teams managing on-call rotations across multiple incident response channels should use Axiom Security Break Glass Access for its tight integration with PagerDuty and OpsGenie, eliminating the friction between who's supposed to have access and who actually activates it. The tool's synchronization with live on-call schedules means you're not manually updating break glass rosters after every rotation change, and automatic access revocation after incidents closes a common gap where temporary elevated access becomes permanent. Skip this if your organization runs break glass workflows disconnected from on-call systems or needs deep integration with Slack/Teams incident channels; Axiom is built for teams that already live in PagerDuty.

Common Fate

Mid-market and enterprise teams running AWS or GCP will find the most value in Common Fate's time-bound access model, which eliminates standing privileges without the operational friction of traditional PAM. The platform's Policy-as-Code approach and automated workflows tied to on-call systems mean your engineers spend less time in access requests and your security team audits fewer dormant accounts. Skip this if you need unified PAM across multiple cloud providers or on-premises infrastructure; Common Fate is deliberately cloud-native and won't stretch beyond AWS and GCP.