We performed a comparison between ForgeRock and IBM Security Verify Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Identity Management (IM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature for us is the ability to set up connectors to various IT systems and offer a wide range of supported connectors."
"Surveying is a valuable feature because it allows us to import data and see who has access to what data, for example."
"The customer success and support teams have been crucial."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic provisioning and reconciliation of things like the Active Directory groups and memberships."
"The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology."
"The most relevant feature is Omada's reporting engine. Omada never 'forgets' and archives every process. All steps an admin, user, or manager has executed, are recorded in Omada."
"Omada's best feature is creating accounts, automatically assigning permissions, and distributing resources based on assignment policies."
"It has a lot of out-of-the-box features. It is flexible, and there are a lot of possibilities to configure and extend it. It is user-friendly. It has an interface that is end-user or business-user friendly."
"We used it to implement multi-factor authentication and to improve our security posture as well as reducing the potential for attacks."
"Their access management solution, OpenAM, is most valuable because it meets the needs of a lot of users."
"Easy to customize and adaptable to any environment."
"This is a stable solution. When you do experience any issues, you will see it in your DB logs or audit logs so you can easily reach a conclusion of might be causing it."
"Installation and configuration are pretty easy for ForgeRock OpenIDM."
"The most valuable features are that it is easy to manage and it's stable."
"Even though we have very small business interests with them today, they see that we plan on growing drastically over the next two years. Therefore, we have excellent support and we are now at a point where we are not calling tech support. We pick up a phone and call the Account Manager and they'll get everything resolved for us. We don't have to queue along with everybody else and go through a long process."
"The solution integrates well and it is important for them to keep up with the current trends in the market quickly enough, and they have been doing a good job at it."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"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."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"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."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"I would like to search on date fields, which is not possible now."
"The UI design needs improvement. One or two years ago, Omada changed its user interface to simplify, but the simplification has not really kicked in."
"There is room for improvement in Omada's integration capabilities, particularly in streamlining complex integrations and enhancing programming logic for better rule management."
"If you find an error and you need it fixed, you have to upgrade. It's not like they say, "Okay, we'll fix this problem for you." You have to upgrade. The last time we upgraded, because there was an error in a previous version, we had to pay 150,000 Danish Krone (about $24,000 at the time of this review) to upgrade our systems... That means that we have to pay to get errors fixed that Omada has made in programming the system. I hope they change this way of looking at things."
"Omada's performance could be better because we had some latency issues. Still, it's difficult to say how much of that is due to Omada versus the resources used by our other vendors in our on-prem environment. Considering the resources we have invested into making it run well, it's slightly slower than we would expect."
"Its flexibility is both a good thing and a bad thing. Because it is very flexible, it also becomes too complex. This is common for most of the products we evaluated. Its scalability should be better. It had a few scalability issues."
"When making a process, you should be able to use some coding to do some advanced calculations. The calculations you can currently do are too basic. I would also like some additional script features."
"If you're running Omada on a cloud service, you may have some issues deploying the newest release. Sometimes, the latest release doesn't adapt to the processes we have already installed. Identity Access Management is a critical system for our organization, and we need to ensure that everyone has the same access as they did before the release."
"The solution requires more simplified customization. However, part of the problem is my clients determining their own preferences. Technology can help and do many things, but you have to define your own policies to ensure that the solution or service works within those parameters. Helping customers understand their business and different processes is another issue not relating to the functionality of this solution."
"We would like this solution to be developed for use with mobile applications."
"The solution's deployment should be made easier."
"I find that it's quite expensive for just an open-source system. Support is quite expensive."
"The solution's documentation is not very good, and they do not give more details."
"In an upcoming release, the solution could improve by limiting the need to do customizations."
"I think the upgrade process is sometimes a little complicated and there are failures that occur."
"Automatic Deployment needs improvement. it could be made easier."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
ForgeRock is ranked 6th in Identity Management (IM) with 27 reviews while IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 17th in Identity Management (IM) with 7 reviews. ForgeRock is rated 8.0, while IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ForgeRock writes "Governance and access management solution used for multi-factor authentication that is outdated with an unresponsive UI". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". ForgeRock is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, PingID, Microsoft Entra ID, Auth0 and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, whereas IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Workforce Identity, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and PingID. See our ForgeRock vs. IBM Security Verify Access report.
See our list of best Identity Management (IM) vendors and best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Identity Management (IM) 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.
