We performed a comparison between Frontegg and PingFederate 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."We like the SSO, permissions and roles, multiple workspaces, and react login components."
"Every feature is multi-tenant by design, making different customer requests effortless to provide."
"The MFA policy via Frontegg allows us to enable/disable/enforce the Multi-Factor Authentication policy of our users and to enhance security and adhere to modern standards."
"The admin portal layer is super useful and saves valuable front-end development time."
"It has Audit Log and many cool features that if we were to develop them by ourselves, it would require a lot of research and development resources. Frontegg gives us everything we need to ensure that our customers have a safe and reliable authentication system in which they can also manage some of the features and roles by themself which gives them more control over their environment."
"Their developers were always willing to meet even though we are in very different time zones."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It would be nice to have a backup export with all tenant/users so that in case of a mistake we can have the option to restore the users."
"The web interface is missing a way to delete a workspace. I have accidentally created a workspace and was not able to delete it. It's a minor thing that should be supported."
"Frontegg is fairly stable, however, we are looking forward to some promised capabilities, such as more tightly integrated Feature Flag support."
"We're hoping to see more user management-related features, according to Frontegg's roadmap."
"We really like the ability to add the same user across tenants. From a UX perspective, the flow can be betterized."
"The PHP SDK is limited. It's not a huge deal as we can just use their web API directly, but it is something to note if you're using PHP. "
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
Earn 20 points
Frontegg is ranked 20th in Single Sign-On (SSO) while PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. Frontegg is rated 9.6, while PingFederate is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Frontegg writes "Intuitive with reCaptcha integration and helpful technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". Frontegg is most compared with Auth0, Descope, Okta Customer Identity and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Symantec Siteminder, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory and CyberArk Identity. See our Frontegg vs. PingFederate report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors and best Authentication Systems 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.
