We performed a comparison between One Identity Active Roles and WSO2 Identity Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Provisioning Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."In comparison to native Active Directory tools, using Active Roles for delegation is so much better. It uses an access template and that makes it easy to see who can access what. In fact, you can do that for many objects as well."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features include auditing, dynamic grouping, and creating dynamic groups based on AD attributes."
"Active Roles improved the management of users, groups, and AD objects in the organization."
"Secure access is the most valuable feature."
"It's valuable to us in that it resembles the native tools that most people have grown accustomed to... Active Roles resembles traditional tools, such as from Microsoft. That is really good because it eases the way people interact with the tool."
"Having a tool to manage all changes to AD from a single pane of glass is awesome."
"The AD and AAD management features of this solution are really good... They offer added value by showing more fields such as password age and the statuses of some things that we normally wouldn't see."
"Some of the valuable features of the solution are the easy integration with processes, such as Single Sign-On. Overall WSO2 is straightforward and does not need customization."
"The single sign-on procedure itself, as well as the ability to connect to external user sources such as Microsoft Active Directory and LDAP servers, are the solution's most valuable features."
"Comprehensive ecosystem."
"The product provides easy integration between API manager and IT server components."
"It's very easy to implement everything."
"I would rate the solution's stability eight or nine out of ten."
"The keystore feature has been most valuable for us."
"For ActiveRoles, it would be good if the product supports multi-scripting language. You can use only VBScript."
"The third area for improvement, which is the weakest portion of ARS, is the workflow engine, which was introduced a few years ago. It's slow and not very intuitive to use, so I would like to see improvement there."
"Most of the time it just works."
"I've had a difficult time getting it to cooperate with Azure in the cloud and, while the support staff are very good and very knowledgeable, what they assist with just on a call doesn't go deep enough to help with a number of issues. The answer that comes back is that we'd have to start an engagement with Professional Services, which is fine but that takes time to schedule and it takes budget."
"The initial setup was quite easy, but it was time-consuming. It took about three months."
"The ability to send logs to a SIEM would be very beneficial."
"The user and group management in Azure AD could be better. Our focus these days is dynamic sharing with several on-prem Microsoft applications like SharePoint."
"Another issue we have with the product is that we run a lot of custom tasks. You have to program them to run on one particular host and there's no automatic failover to a second host. If that host is down when a task is supposed to run, it has to wait until the next time it runs when that host is up."
"Sometimes working with the code is difficult because I search for documentation about the code and how to work with the code, which is where I believe they should improve, by providing some documentation on how to work with the code."
"There needs to be a good support model and easy-to-understand documentation."
"This solution requires extensive knowledge to be used effectively as certain areas of its use are not user friendly."
"I found the initial setup to be very complex."
"The solution could improve its development from a user perspective."
"This solution does not have BPM workflows already integrated, we had to integrate the BPM module externally. They do not provide full-featured auditing and certification modules out of the box."
"The high availability architecture has to be improved."
One Identity Active Roles is ranked 5th in User Provisioning Software with 17 reviews while WSO2 Identity Server is ranked 6th in Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) with 7 reviews. One Identity Active Roles is rated 8.6, while WSO2 Identity Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of One Identity Active Roles writes "Single interface and workflows simplify AD and Azure AD management efficiency and security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WSO2 Identity Server writes "Provides valuable API management features, but its technical documentation needs improvement". One Identity Active Roles is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, ManageEngine ADManager Plus, One Identity Manager, SailPoint IdentityIQ and Softerra Adaxes, whereas WSO2 Identity Server is most compared with Auth0, Amazon Cognito, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, SAP Identity Management and SailPoint IdentityIQ. See our One Identity Active Roles vs. WSO2 Identity Server report.
We monitor all User Provisioning Software 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.