We performed a comparison between IBM Security Verify Access 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."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."
"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."
"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."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"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."
"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 needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"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."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 14th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews while PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8, while PingFederate is rated 8.2. 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 PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". 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 PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Symantec Siteminder, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory and CyberArk Identity. See our IBM Security Verify Access vs. PingFederate 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.
