We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and IBM Security Verify Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."For me, the best feature of Omada Identity is its web interface because it's really easy for users to understand."
"The support response time and the freedom from strange bugs and strange things happening in the software are valuable."
"Its best feature is definitely the process design. It is quite easy and straightforward to design a process."
"I'm not using Omada, but the interface is easy to use and gives you a solid overview of your identities."
"Omada's user interface is elegant and easy to work with. I like Omada's ability to automatically generate accounts for new hires and allow them access to all required systems by established policies. Around 80 percent of workers can start working immediately on their first day without requesting further access."
"User-friendly solution."
"When we started with identity and access management, we cleaned up and skipped 500 accounts. Therefore, there are a lot of people who are still in our system. Using this tool, we have cleaned up a lot of accounts for ourselves as well as our partners and suppliers. So, we can manage everything now."
"You can make resources. You can import them from Azure or Active Directory and put them in an application. For example, if there is an application that uses a lot of Active Directory groups, you can make the groups available for people. If they need to access that application, you can tell them the resource groups you have for that application. People can do everything by themselves. They do not need anybody else. They can just go to the Omada portal, and they can do it all by themselves. That is terrific."
"The feature I value the most is the one-time passwords because it helps to authenticate users so you know the timing of their usage."
"Features the addition and removal of access as needed for the VPN."
"I work a lot with Fortinet products and I call the support often. They are very quick to respond and the support is very good."
"The web feature is quite versatile. It serves as the sole server authenticator and is valuable not only with FortiGate products but also within the entire Forti system, making it highly useful for me."
"We have a perpetual license for 2FA."
"The first valuable feature is being able to see everything on one platform. This includes logs and authentication failure."
"I prefer the passing tool that sent an active directory console to a Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, then Fortinet FortiAuthenticator does not pass the locks."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"The account management integration isn't bad, but it isn't plug-and-play like Microsoft Azure. You need some deep development knowledge to set up the connectors."
"Improved traceability would be helpful for administrators. For example, let's say a user's permission is being revoked. We can only see the system that has carried out a particular action but not what triggered it. If an event definition or something has changed in the criteria for the permission being removed or something like that, we don't have immediate access to that information. It takes a little detective work."
"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 reporting and importing have room for improvement."
"I would like more training. As someone who is new to this world, I don't feel that the courses Omada provides are good enough. They should also improve the documentation. It is difficult to learn how to use the solution by yourself"
"There's a challenge with handling large amounts of data in this system."
"The security permission inside Omada needs improvement. It's tricky to set up."
"When the re-certification process is launched that makes Omada very slow. There are performance issues in the current version."
"The technical support team is bad."
"The integration with third-party tools must be better."
"No SMS gateway from the ISP"
"We have issues with HA (high availability). These should be addressed in future releases."
"FortiAuthenticator's interface could be better."
"Lacks a simplified two-factor authentication process."
"The integration with other products, for example, some SAML authentications, would make it more flexible."
"I would like to see more ways to authenticate, such as adding facial recognition to the two-factor, where you log into your phone or another device."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"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."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 52 reviews while IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 14th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews. Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is rated 8.0, while IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiAuthenticator writes "A reasonably priced solution that can be scaled toward different functionalities and offers flexible SMS messaging". 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". Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiToken, Fortinet FortiNAC, Cisco Duo and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Workforce Identity, ForgeRock, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. See our Fortinet FortiAuthenticator vs. IBM Security Verify Access report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors and best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.
