No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Authentify vs Idira Identity comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 2, 2026

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

Authentify
Ranking in Authentication Systems
28th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Idira Identity
Ranking in Authentication Systems
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Identity Management (IM) (9th), Authorization Software (2nd), Enterprise Password Managers (9th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (10th), Access Management (7th), Active Directory Management (6th), Cloud Resource Access Management (2nd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Authentication Systems category, the mindshare of Authentify is 1.2%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Idira Identity is 1.6%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Authentication Systems Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Idira Identity1.6%
Authentify1.2%
Other97.2%
Authentication Systems
 

Featured Reviews

DS
Owner at David Strom Inc.
A new way to perform multifactor authentication using specialized SaaS software
Avoids man in the middle or man in the browser exploits that other two factor products are susceptible to One month I got a few error messages which turned out to be themselves errors. I have been using SecurID tokens and wanted something that didn't require hardware authentication devices.…
Hariharan Thangasamy - PeerSpot reviewer
Cybersecurity Delivery Analyst at Accenture
Has strengthened privileged access control and improved audit visibility through session monitoring and password rotation
On the identity product side, it is awesome. However, they can improve in the documentation parts. For example, if there is a migration process, I can see the maximum customers are moving from self-hosted to on-premises or from on-premises to the cloud. It would be helpful if they released a generalized document for processes such as migration. A clear overview document would assist us in understanding more about the tool, configurations, and automations to enhance our security. Regarding the initial setup of CyberArk Identity, I faced some challenges. At some points, I could not find proper documentation for deploying, enhancing, or integrating with other components. I could not find the proper documentation in the community portal.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Avoids man in the middle or man in the browser exploits that other two factor products are susceptible to."
"The tool helps with authentication. It acts as an MFA for any kind of privileged access that occurs in our organization."
"The features that I personally find most effective in terms of security stem from the fact that it is easy to integrate and also the adoption is faster."
"CyberArk Identity provides identity governance and gives me control over who and how access to environments occurs, offering significant confidentiality in what is accessed."
"The user self-service program and the Office 365 provisioning service feature are the most valuable. It is a very easy and feature-rich solution that gives priority to the users and security."
"The solution helps with auditing, and monitoring, and integrates with Splunk for log analysis. User activity logs are captured in CyberArk Identity and sent to external tools like Splunk for analysis and monitoring."
"The features are really powerful, providing really good SSO and MFA features and implementation capability, plus an MDM solution, and the cloud-based setup is simple and scalable."
"Overall, I would rate CyberArk Identity a nine out of ten."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Identity was straightforward."
 

Cons

"I got a few error messages which turned out to be themselves errors."
"At the moment CyberArk needs to enrich Conjur and it needs to be made more viable so that its adoption can be made much faster."
"Integration or deployment is extremely difficult for CyberArk Identity."
"Some areas experience slowness based on the workload. There's a need to enhance network performance despite the good user experience with access management."
"When you translate the page from one language to another, it can be a difficult process. The translation isn't always good, and it may have a completely different name. I've noticed this in the English to Spanish translation."
"The product is not cheap, especially if you opt for an on-premise deployment requiring a complex server infrastructure. On the other hand, choosing the software as a service version simplifies infrastructure requirements but necessitates being online all the time."
"In terms of a governance platform, it's worth noting that CyberArk doesn't offer a particularly strong one."
"The product needs to leverage the cloud more, especially in the financial sector, where cloud adoption might be limited. Proper reporting within the cloud is essential. The tool should be more user-friendly to expedite access for users. The current agent-based system poses challenges if a user loses access to the server, making tasks difficult to perform. It should also improve technical support."
"The OpenID features could improve in CyberArk Identity."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"There could be some additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution when you want to develop connectors in CyberArk Identity."
"CyberArk Identity is an expensive solution."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a seven out of ten. The product’s pricing is expensive and is on a yearly basis. You will need to pay around 10,000 GBP for 500 users."
"There is an initial license and then there is a subscription needed."
"The pricing of CyberArk Identity is competitive."
"The pricing is acceptable. It is worth considering what we are protecting with the amount charged."
"In terms of pricing, BeyondTrust and CyberArk tend to be more expensive, with CyberArk receiving an eight out of ten, in this regard."
"We find that the pricing and licensing of this solution is adequate, as compared to the other competitors in the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Authentication Systems solutions are best for your needs.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise10
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Identity?
I am not certain about CyberArk Identity's exact pricing model. For comparison, Okta was around five dollars per user. CyberArk Identity offers good discounts to some clients, which influences thei...
What needs improvement with CyberArk Identity?
We do not specifically use the password vaulting feature of CyberArk Identity. The centralized user dashboard of CyberArk Identity has not been that important for us. If it would be possible to sha...
What is your primary use case for CyberArk Identity?
It's not being purchased through AWS, but we're using CyberArk Identity as a SaaS solution. I think it's running on AWS, but we bought it directly from CyberArk.
 

Also Known As

xFA
Idaptive
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Midwestern Bank
MLB, Citi, Pfizer, SulAmerica, GE Capital, Shiseido
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, Okta and others in Authentication Systems. Updated: June 2026.
902,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.