We performed a comparison between IBM Security Verify Access and Oracle Identity Governance 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."Omada Identity Suite has a very powerful workflow engine. It is used for requesting access for approval to everything that's around Access Management and for re-certification purposes."
"Omada offers a technical solution that addresses both our needs."
"The teams we work with at Omada provide great insights and support. Overall, it has been a pleasure working with them. That's the part we value the most."
"Surveying is a valuable feature because it allows us to import data and see who has access to what data, for example."
"The key benefit of Omada Identity is maintaining complete control."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"The Governance and self-service that can be set up so you can use them yourself to work in the system are the most valuable features. End users can be enabled to help themselves."
"User-friendly solution."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"Role-based access control (RBAC) has been crucial for role-based management in my current company. Granular access restrictions based on role-based policies were beneficial."
"What I found most useful in Oracle Identity Governance, feature-wise, are provisioning, de-provisioning, and termination. Those features are very good. Oracle Identity Governance can also be easily integrated with non-Oracle products, which I find valuable."
"The most important features that have impacted our environment recently are the Single Sign-On solution, role based provisioning, and the automated provisioning of accounts to target systems."
"OIM in my organization has improved its use and dependability, allowing us to pass audit each time."
"The most important feature is the connectors. Without the connectors, it can do nothing."
"The most valuable feature of Oracle Identity Governance is user lifecycle management. Certification is also a valuable feature of the solution. Oracle Identity Governance allows you to assign who has access to what, which is its basic feature."
"The proactive controls which can be configured to a granular level allowing the organization the flexibility to meet the changing demands of the workforce."
"I have found the OIM Connector framework, based on ICF, to be the most valuable feature."
"The reporting on the warehouse data and the import process both have room for improvement."
"I would like to search on date fields, which is not possible now."
"The Omada support response time has room for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"When the re-certification process is launched that makes Omada very slow. There are performance issues in the current version."
"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."
"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."
"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 user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"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 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."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"The development and the administration side could be a lot more intuitive and easier to use than it currently is, in terms of functionality and what it tries to achieve as a Single Sign-On entity for an enterprise environment."
"The product design has some complications for doing some use cases. I would like to see easier onboarding of applications and easier ways to plugin the customization codes."
"The cost of this product needs to be reduced."
"Simplify & add more functionality to Identity Cloud Service (IDCS)."
"The user interface experience needs to be improved."
"Oracle Identity Governance, particularly version 12c, can handle multiple scenarios, but for a regular user, I found the use cases not that extensive, so this is an area for improvement. The implementation process for Oracle Identity Governance is also a bit more complex than how you implement competitor products, and this is another area for improvement in the solution. Technical support for Oracle Identity Governance also needs some improvement. Another area for improvement in Oracle Identity Governance is its documentation. Currently, it's lacking when compared to SailPoint. What I'd like to see in the next release of Oracle Identity Governance is a bit more scope for AI-based Identity governance. If the solution has built-in intelligence, that will give it more leverage. Another feature I'd like to see in Oracle Identity Governance in the future is the option for managers to provide access to others via mobile devices or phones."
"The platform could be enhanced with additional features."
"t is too complex, has too many bugs, and is an immature product, even the best case, beta version."
IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 17th in Identity Management (IM) with 7 reviews while Oracle Identity Governance is ranked 10th in Identity Management (IM) with 66 reviews. IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8, while Oracle Identity Governance is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Identity Governance writes "A scalable solution designed to meet the requirements of medium and large-sized companies". 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, whereas Oracle Identity Governance is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Saviynt and ForgeRock. See our IBM Security Verify Access vs. Oracle Identity Governance report.
See our list of best Identity Management (IM) 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.
