NetIQ Access Manager vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

OpenText and Ping Identity are both solutions in the Access Management category. OpenText is ranked #21, while Ping Identity is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.2. OpenText holds a 1.0% mindshare in AM, compared to Ping Identity’s 7.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of OpenText users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Ping Identity users who would recommend it.

NetIQ Access Manager

Read 5 NetIQ Access Manager reviews

402 Views
264 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Ping Identity Platform

Read 29 Ping Identity Platform reviews

3,455 Views
2,479 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

NetIQ Access Manager

Ping Identity Platform

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between NetIQ Access Manager and Ping Identity Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Access Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

NetIQ Access Manager

Ranking in Access Management

21st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Web Access Management (4th)

Ping Identity Platform

Ranking in Access Management

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Single Sign-On (SSO) (4th), Authentication Systems (6th), Data Governance (8th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (6th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of NetIQ Access Manager is 1.0%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 7.8%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Access Management

Featured Reviews

Cassio-Silva

Technology director at Asyg

Multi-Factor Authentication, stable, and extremely scalable

I use NetIQ Access Manager to protect one single application with Multi-Factor Authentication. The solution is deployed on both cloud and on-prem The Multi-Factor Authentication of NetIQ Access Manager has helped protect our organization. The most valuable features of NetIQ Access Manager are…

Read full review

Dilip Reddy

Ping Engineer at Equitable

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The single sign-on feature is excellent."

"The features that we have found most valuable with NetIQ Access Manager are its single sign-on and two factor two second factor database."

"It's very easy to integrate with applications."

"There are lots of options to customize the solution to your needs."

"The most valuable features of NetIQ Access Manager are SSO and Multi-Factor Authentication."

"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."

"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."

"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."

"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."

"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."

"Setting up the infrastructure with Ping Identity Platform is very easy compared to other IAM products."

"It offers robust features and customization options that justify the cost."

"We use the product to run different reports."

More Ping Identity Platform pros

Cons

"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the security of the infrastructure and the server and the working networking device."

"Having the ability to easily extract and view and compare and version control configurations would be ideal."

"I would love to see the upgrade procedure handled more effectively. I would prefer to have OVS installation possibilities, although the upgrade procedures should include the OS as well. You should be able to use the whole application as an appliance."

"The application portal could be improved with more options and easier customization."

"Classification of junctions and new versions of applications, such as APIs, can be added to enable the use of more devices that utilize biometrics for Multi-Factor Authentication to improve the 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."

"In the beginning, the initial setup was very complex."

"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."

"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."

"The product is not customizable."

"Some colleagues have mentioned API connectivity, data security, and privacy issues."

"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."

More Ping Identity Platform cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is average."

"The product is costly."

"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."

"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."

"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."

"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."

"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."

"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."

"The tool is quite affordable."

More Ping Identity Platform pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Government

10%

Retailer

Financial Services Firm

26%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

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...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingID?

The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap.

See all answers

What needs improvement with PingID?

The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it.

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Entra ID vs NetIQ Access Manager

Compared 54% of the time

Okta Workforce Identity vs NetIQ Access Manager

Compared 46% of the time

More NetIQ Access Manager Competitors

Microsoft Entra ID vs Ping Identity Platform

Compared 21% of the time

Symantec Siteminder vs Ping Identity Platform

Compared 10% of the time

ForgeRock vs Ping Identity Platform

Compared 7% of the time

Microsoft Active Directory vs Ping Identity Platform

Compared 7% of the time

Saviynt vs Ping Identity Platform

Compared 6% of the time

More Ping Identity Platform Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

NetIQ Access Manager vs. Symantec Siteminder

April 2025

Download NetIQ Access Manager product report

Buyer's Guide

Ping Identity Platform

April 2025

Download Ping Identity Platform product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ

Overview

Access Manager provides a simple yet secure and scalable solution that can handle all your web access needs both internal as well as in the cloud.

OpenText

IDENTITY DEFINED SECURITY PLATFORM delivers a unified, standards-based platform that can be deployed as SaaS, software or both and can scale to handle millions of identities. From multi-factor authentication and single sign-on to access security, directory and data governance, our capabilities work together to give employees, partners and customers secure access to cloud, mobile and enterprise applications, securing and streamlined everything from sign-on to sign-off and everywhere in between.

Ping Identity

Sample Customers

Bancomext, Bouwend Nederland, Camera dei Deputati, CGT, Coopservice Group, Court of Appeals of Georgia, Etnic, European Automotive Manufacturer, FDM Document Dynamics, Hainan Province Information Center, Highland Community College, Huntington Bank, Johnsonville Sausage, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Mazars, Mexico's Tax Administration Service, Owens Community College, Pasco Risk, RDC, School District of Hartford, Senckenberg Nature Research Society, Sheetz, Spanish Public Employment Service, SUNY Orange County Community College, Swisscard, The Municipality of Siena, The University of Westminster, UMB Financial Corporation Invests in Identity Management, University of Dayton, University of Groningen, Vodacom, World Wide Technology

Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol

Buyer's Guide

NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform

April 2025

Free Report: NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform

Find out what your peers are saying about NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our NetIQ Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform report.

See our list of best Access Management vendors.

We monitor all Access Management 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.