Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Ataccama ONE Platform vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Ataccama ONE Platform
Ranking in Data Governance
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Data Quality (5th), Master Data Management (MDM) Software (4th)
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Data Governance
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (4th), Authentication Systems (6th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (6th), Access Management (4th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of Ataccama ONE Platform is 2.5%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 0.3%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Governance
 

Featured Reviews

JohnZacharkan - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced data quality with machine learning support in diverse environments
We used Ataccama ONE to read data from the mainframe for a data quality perspective. There's a significant lack in that area with tools being able to interface with mainframe. MetLife has a diverse environment, including DB2, Oracle, SQL Server, legacy, and vSAN files. Being able to work in these various environments and put them to a single data quality tool was very appealing. Additionally, Ataccama supported AI and machine learning, which was one of the features I liked. Furthermore, we were able to interface bidirectionally with Collibra for data governance, catching data quality issues before propagating through the system.
Dilip Reddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to use but requires improvements in the area of stability
In my company, we have worked on authorization, and I know that there are different types of grants. We have worked on the authorization code, client credentials, and ROPC grant. There are two types of tokens, like the JWT token and internally managed reference tokens. JWT tokens are useful for finding information related to the claim requests. Internally managed reference tokens are useful for dealing with visual data and information. For the clients to fit the user information, they need to do additional work to fit all the user info into the site, which is to define and validate the token issue and provide the request for VPNs. I worked on the key differences between the authorization code and implicit grant. In the authorization code type, you will have the authorization code issued initially to the client, and the client has to exchange it with the authorization server, like using a DAC channel to get the access token. In implicit grants, tokens are issued right away if the application is a single-page application. We can either use the authorization code or an implicit grant.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The ease of use of the user console is valuable."
"The drag-and-drop feature is incredibly flexible and straightforward."
"The desktop version of the solution was particularly valuable to me, primarily for creating components. We opted for the data quality aspect to assess the quality of our data warehouse. The functionalities available allowed us to not only check data quality but also serve as an ETL tool. This versatility enabled data transformation and storage in various formats, including files on platforms like SharePoint or local online directories. The flexibility of the tool catered to the specific needs of those building components, contributing to our desired outcomes."
"Customer service was excellent, and I would give it a ten out of ten."
"The product’s important feature is data profiling and quality check."
"The notable aspect lies in the workflow structure, where building the workflow aligns significantly with data governance."
"I like the self-service feature. The 502 and UBP systems are also excellent. PingID's ability to authenticate with SSH, RDP, and Windows login is pretty handy. It covers the entire spectrum of use."
"The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering."
"This is a user-friendly solution."
"The mobile biometric authentication option improved user experience. It's always about security because, with two-factor authentication, it's always a separate device verifying the actual user logging in."
"The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"It's convenient for users to log in through Ping using the Kerberos adapter because it doesn't require them to authenticate again."
 

Cons

"The interfacing to tools such as Collibra was somewhat cumbersome and required more thought."
"There is a notable challenge in having to provide detailed filters before the site recognizes the search criteria."
"Speaking specifically about the version we use, version 12.3, I'm unsure if this has been addressed in subsequent versions. One improvement I'd like to see pertains to the language used in certain components, especially in data quality checks. The language complexity posed a challenge for beginners. Although we had on-site assistance from Ataccama, making it manageable for us, some individuals found it difficult to comprehend, necessitating additional support. The provision of a comprehensive guide for on-premise installation can also be enhanced. The lack of detailed information on the solution's workings and the overwhelming nature of notifications, with extensive content, were areas of concern. Streamlining the notification content in newer versions would significantly expedite issue resolution."
"I believe it would be beneficial if it could enhance its flexibility to connect with a wider range of downstream systems beyond just Excel and Postgres."
"It is complicated to fetch 20-25 reports when we profile the data."
"Data movement is a pain."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"In Ping Identity, we have had some issues. We've worked with logging and troubleshooting, including some firewall and security issues."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"There is room for improvement in the solution, particularly in security."
"We can choose a drop-down to search for which certificate we have to create, which is difficult."
"Some colleagues have mentioned API connectivity, data security, and privacy issues."
"PingAccess can only have one token provider, and you cannot enable two different token providers simultaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Despite not being extremely low-cost, the pricing appears reasonable, making it a profitable and viable choice for companies that prioritize data security and adhere to specific policies."
"Our licensing model wasn't user-specific; instead, we paid fees for the engine and maintenance. As we didn't have a support contract, maintenance fees were likely nonexistent. Regarding the upgrade, we had an account for the initial two or three years, and considering the features provided by the solution, the pricing was reasonable."
"The product is reasonably priced."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"The tool is quite affordable."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Ataccama ONE Platform?
The notable aspect lies in the workflow structure, where building the workflow aligns significantly with data governance.
What needs improvement with Ataccama ONE Platform?
The interfacing to tools such as Collibra was somewhat cumbersome and required more thought. While it was possible to configure these interfaces, they required some coding. It would be beneficial i...
What is your primary use case for Ataccama ONE Platform?
Some of the use cases for Ataccama ONE included data quality, identifying and mapping to Collibra, which was their data governance tool. It was critical for them to interface directly with that too...
What do you like most about PingID?
The mobile biometric authentication option improved user experience. It's always about security because, with two-factor authentication, it's always a separate device verifying the actual user logg...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingID?
The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap.
What needs improvement with PingID?
The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Société Générale, First Data, Raiffeisenbank International, T-Mobile, Avast, RSA, Toronto Public Library
Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Find out what your peers are saying about Ataccama ONE Platform vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.