No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Imanami GroupID vs JupiterOne comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Imanami GroupID
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
36th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
User Provisioning Software (12th), Active Directory Management (19th)
JupiterOne
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (49th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (30th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) category, the mindshare of Imanami GroupID is 0.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of JupiterOne is 0.4%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
JupiterOne0.4%
Imanami GroupID0.6%
Other99.0%
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Cauthorn - PeerSpot reviewer
Identity and Access Management Manager at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
Simplifies the task of managing groups and is affordable and easy to implement
I'd like to see it be able to do more than just groups. I'd like it to be able to do some things with email distribution lists as well. It can do that, but there were a few things that were limiting. It was difficult to get it set up, particularly with Azure in the cloud. I'd like that to be a little bit smoother. I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools. We've got a ton of groups, and it does take quite a while to do nightly processing. This is something that definitely needs improvement.
CO
Security Analyst at a outsourcing company with 501-1,000 employees
Unified asset visibility has improved investigations and now simplifies tracking security assets
There are some features that I have shared with our customer service manager. One of them that is relevant to us at this time is the need for better determination of unified devices. Currently, JupiterOne uses hostname weights, MAC addresses, or IP addresses to tie devices together, but we have actually requested a way for us to make those determinations ourselves. For example, when externally scanning a device using Qualys, internally it gives an IP address or FQDN, while externally it might be different. We want to be able to decide ourselves that these two devices are the same device even when they have different names and IP addresses for external and internal use. The unified devices feature is valuable and did not used to exist, and it has been fantastic. However, I believe more can be done regarding unified devices, and giving users the privilege to tie them together would be a good addition to the platform. One of the other things that interest us in JupiterOne and why we really wanted to use the tool is the compliance feature. We wanted to use it to track our compliance since we are ISO 27001 certified. However, the compliance module has not worked well, and we have had to continue tracking our compliance manually with the tools we use. Although there are some works in progress to improve the compliance part of the tool, I think if they can get it up to speed, that would be a really good improvement.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system, and based on that job code, we use the query tool so that anybody who is in this job code gets these groups added to them, or conversely, if they change job codes, it removes the ones that they shouldn't have and adds the one they should, which runs every night so that the next day everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system. Based on that job code, we use the query tool and say that anybody who is in this job code gets these groups added to them, or conversely, if they change job codes, it removes the ones that they shouldn't have and adds the one they should. That runs every night, and the next day, everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"JupiterOne helps us aggregate all those things on one single platform, allowing us to quickly identify what environment that asset lives in and what type of asset it is."
"The product’s UI is pretty decent and fast."
 

Cons

"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools."
"The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO."
"I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky."
"However, the compliance module has not worked well, and we have had to continue tracking our compliance manually with the tools we use."
"You can only write Python queries in Jupiter, not other languages, like, SQL or PySpark."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is on a yearly basis, and it has the product license fee and the support for it. So, there is the licensing fee, and there is the annual maintenance that includes the support. I don't remember exactly, but we're probably paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000 for it per year. We've got a pretty large implementation of it, and for the amount that we do, it is a pretty good deal. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Media Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with JupiterOne?
There are some features that I have shared with our customer service manager. One of them that is relevant to us at this time is the need for better determination of unified devices. Currently, Jup...
What is your primary use case for JupiterOne?
Our main use case for JupiterOne is as an asset catalog tool where we document all our assets that are integrated from different platforms such as Device42, Qualys, Microsoft M365, and Defender. We...
What advice do you have for others considering JupiterOne?
JupiterOne has many features. Although none comes to mind almost immediately, I know it often depends on how we are able to write or craft the queries. JupiterOne has been very instrumental to me i...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Grant Thornton LLP
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Imanami GroupID vs. JupiterOne and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
885,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.