We performed a comparison between Frontegg and Red Hat Single Sign On 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."
"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."
"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."
"Every feature is multi-tenant by design, making different customer requests effortless to provide."
"The admin portal layer is super useful and saves valuable front-end development time."
"Red Hat SSO integrates well with our other solutions. Using OIDC protocols and ITL integration, employees can authenticate with Red Hat SSO and access our microservices."
"Good support for single sign-on protocols."
"Red Hat SSO has a lot of very concise, well laid out documentation, which is available in the free edition as well."
"The product’s most valuable feature is its ability to assign only one password for the user at a false value."
"It is very easy to scale and use as you want."
"We're hoping to see more user management-related features, according to Frontegg's roadmap."
"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. "
"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."
"We really like the ability to add the same user across tenants. From a UX perspective, the flow can be betterized."
"Frontegg is fairly stable, however, we are looking forward to some promised capabilities, such as more tightly integrated Feature Flag support."
"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."
"They could provide more checks and balances to find out if there have been any security lapses, e.g., if somebody is trying to break into the system. Some other products have these detection mechanisms in case someone is trying to hack into the system or find out a user's passwords."
"The product’s technical support services could be better."
"Red Hat SSO's architecture could be updated."
"Security could be improved."
Earn 20 points
Frontegg is ranked 20th in Single Sign-On (SSO) while Red Hat Single Sign On is ranked 11th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. Frontegg is rated 9.6, while Red Hat Single Sign On is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Frontegg writes "Intuitive with reCaptcha integration and helpful technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Single Sign On writes "It is very easy to scale and use as you want, but there could be more checks and balances to find out if there have been any security lapses". Frontegg is most compared with Auth0, Descope, Okta Customer Identity and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas Red Hat Single Sign On is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Auth0, Okta Workforce Identity, AWS IAM Identity Center and PingFederate. See our Frontegg vs. Red Hat Single Sign On report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.
