We performed a comparison between CyberArk Identity and IBM Security Access Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Access Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The most valuable features of CyberArk Identity are its ability to control access to administrative staff."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"If anyone makes an error, or if an incident occurs by accident, the business will not be harmed as a result of this activity."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It takes me up to an hour and a half."
"The setup, via cloud, is simple."
"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."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it."
"They could improve their UI and make everything more user-friendly."
"The solution could be easier to use and I found it to be very complex involving many steps."
"CyberArk Identity could improve by having the ability to better manage the network, such as Cisco. There seem to be some issues in this area."
"They can include the Mobile Device Management (MDM) feature."
"The user interface could be improved."
"More integrations would be better."
"What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding. We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium. As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain."
"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
CyberArk Identity is ranked 5th in Access Management with 7 reviews while IBM Security Access Manager is ranked 11th in Access Management with 4 reviews. CyberArk Identity is rated 9.2, while IBM Security Access Manager is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of CyberArk Identity writes "Easy to set up with powerful features and good reliability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security Access Manager writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". CyberArk Identity is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), Okta Workforce Identity, SailPoint IdentityIQ and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), whereas IBM Security Access Manager is most compared with Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), Okta Workforce Identity, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and ForgeRock. See our CyberArk Identity vs. IBM Security Access Manager report.
See our list of best Access Management 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.
