We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Auth0, Okta and others in Access Management."https://www.itcentralstation.com/product_reviews/microsoft-bi-review-52460-by-amanda-zhou"
"The tool's most valuable feature is auto logs. It helps with user activity and monitoring. It also assists us with GLBA policies and procedures. Microsoft Entra ID gives a 360 view of what the user has access to, what applications are available to them, when they are logging in and out, etc. It makes knowing what is happening to our tenants incredibly powerful."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use."
"Privilege identity management is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to set up conditional access, where you can enforce users to connect using multifactor authentication."
"The security features, multi-factor authentication, and service management features are valuable."
"The boards for task tracking are a valuable feature."
"I like Azure AD's conditional access policies. Microsoft Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, improving the overall user experience."
"Authentication & Authorization are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes. That has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"It has considerably reduced the amount of time that new users would take to join into the organization. Previously, it was a lengthy, manual process because it's a very secure environment, where they need to verify the user before they can actually grant him a user-ID and password. Integrating with the built-in custom application, and exposing CA Single Sign On to the internet, we were able to get the employees onboard. The time that we gained was: previously it would generally take from four to eight weeks for each employee, we brought it to one to two days."
"The most valuable feature is the Federation part of Single Sign On, which is customizable and is easily integrated with any customer application or any third party application."
"It's quite scalable."
"It is very scalable. We have a very large customer base: 75 million customers."
"SAML is the best thing we're using right now because there is no need for creating an external account."
"Federation is valuable, for sure, because we have a lot of third-party vendors that we need to integrate with, and this is a turnkey solution in some ways."
"Right now, federation that comes out-of-the-box with single sign-on is the most valuable feature that we have, and also scalability."
"Better deployment management and visibility functionality would be helpful."
"I would like it to be easier to integrate third-party applications."
"There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. It only mentions that it will scale out if you have a lot of requests but does not mention how in detail."
"A nice feature that is not currently present, would be if they had some visualization tools."
"I hope, in the roadmap, Microsoft eventually offers the same features as Okta. It will take some more time to mature."
"I would like to see Microsoft communicate how they intend to manage legacy applications. Right now, you still have to deploy a hosted domain server (which comes at an extra cost) if you have a legacy application that cannot sync properly with the enterprise applications and the modern applications."
"I want to be able to identify the audiences effectively and manage them."
"When it comes to identity and access life cycle management for applications that are run on-premises, as well as access governance, if those kinds of capabilities could be built into Azure Active Directory, that would be good."
"The support could be faster."
"The Federation part of CA Single Sign On, it's a bit complex to implement because it involves the SSL certificates, exchange of certificates, and lot of technical details. The documentation misses some important parts of this, so that's the reason it took some time for us to go live."
"The initial setup was complex, painful. But that is to be expected of any new setup. When you're a big bank like us, any kind of migration to a new product is hard. I expect it to be painful, and it was painful. But it's not something that you can avoid."
"All the problems that we reported actually have never been resolved. We could not capture enough information for CA to be able to debug the problem."
"The main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur."
"As we are moving in to the mobility space, this is where we really see SiteMinder and their other product really come together to provide a solution base to a different area where the IoT is coming, the different business communications are happening. All of those things require authentication and we really want to see this product grow into that role."
"CA has reporting at the moment. With the reporting, every particular segmented product has a reporting engine. I would like to see centralized reporting for all of them together."
"We would like to the OAuth be more stable, more issues being fixed rather than not."
Earn 20 points
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Access Management with 190 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 16th in Access Management. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, Yubico YubiKey, Cisco Duo and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingID and PingAccess.
See our list of best Access Management vendors and best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors.
We monitor all Access Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.