Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Imprivata OneSign vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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

Imprivata OneSign
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (6th), Data Governance (8th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (6th), Access Management (4th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Single Sign-On (SSO) category, the mindshare of Imprivata OneSign is 2.1%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 7.7%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Single Sign-On (SSO)
 

Featured Reviews

IS
Reasonably priced, performs well, easy to deploy, and has responsive technical support
We use Imprivata OneSign for the single sign-on Imprivata supports single sign-on. OneSign is the name itself. It provides a service that allows users to sign in to whatever application they are using. This is the most important feature of this solution. The deployment is very quick, and the…
Dilip Reddy - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to use but requires improvements in the area of stability
In my company, we have worked on authorization, and I know that there are different types of grants. We have worked on the authorization code, client credentials, and ROPC grant. There are two types of tokens, like the JWT token and internally managed reference tokens. JWT tokens are useful for finding information related to the claim requests. Internally managed reference tokens are useful for dealing with visual data and information. For the clients to fit the user information, they need to do additional work to fit all the user info into the site, which is to define and validate the token issue and provide the request for VPNs. I worked on the key differences between the authorization code and implicit grant. In the authorization code type, you will have the authorization code issued initially to the client, and the client has to exchange it with the authorization server, like using a DAC channel to get the access token. In implicit grants, tokens are issued right away if the application is a single-page application. We can either use the authorization code or an implicit grant.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It has benefited my organization in the way that it makes it more secure by making it harder to hack."
"It provides a service that allows users to sign in to whatever application they are using. This is the most important feature of this solution."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"Setting up the infrastructure with Ping Identity Platform is very easy compared to other IAM products."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"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."
"It's convenient for users to log in through Ping using the Kerberos adapter because it doesn't require them to authenticate again."
 

Cons

"They should have a landing page."
"I would like for them to make this solution compatible with Mac OS. I would also like for them to provide a portal so that users can easily integrate it with their applications."
"PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature."
"They could enhance the product's device tracking for better zero-trust security would be beneficial. Currently, it tracks IPs well but lacks detailed device information, which is crucial from a security standpoint."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"It has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution."
"They could use some bio-certification. It's just more user-friendly and more convenient than entering the one time passes. That would be an improvement."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
"In Ping Identity, we have had some issues. We've worked with logging and troubleshooting, including some firewall and security issues."
"Sometimes, there are issues with its stability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable, it's an affordable solution."
"At the moment, I believe the price is reasonable."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"The product is costly."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"PingID pricing is a ten out of ten because it's a little bit cheaper than other tools, such as Okta and ForgeRock, and supports multiple tools."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
31%
Healthcare Company
24%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about PingID?
The mobile biometric authentication option improved user experience. It's always about security because, with two-factor authentication, it's always a separate device verifying the actual user logg...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingID?
The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap.
What needs improvement with PingID?
The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it.
 

Also Known As

OneSign, Imprivata OneSign Authentication Management
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AZ Groeninge, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust, Mahaska Health Partnership, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Boulder Community Hospital, City of Marietta, Spencer Hospital, Southwest Washington Medical Center, South Shore Hospital
Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Find out what your peers are saying about Imprivata OneSign vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.