We performed a comparison between IBM Security Verify Access 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."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 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 solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"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."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"Good support for single sign-on protocols."
"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."
"It is very easy to scale and use as you want."
"The product’s most valuable feature is its ability to assign only one password for the user at a false value."
"Red Hat SSO has a lot of very concise, well laid out documentation, which is available in the free edition as well."
"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."
"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."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"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."
"The product’s technical support services could be better."
"Red Hat SSO's architecture could be updated."
"Security could be improved."
"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."
IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 14th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews while Red Hat Single Sign On is ranked 11th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8, while Red Hat Single Sign On is rated 8.6. 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 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". 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 Red Hat Single Sign On is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Auth0, Okta Workforce Identity, AWS IAM Identity Center and PingFederate. See our IBM Security Verify Access 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.
