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

Ping Identity Platform vs RSA Adaptive Authentication 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

Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Authentication Systems
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (4th), Data Governance (9th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (5th), Access Management (3rd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (3rd), Directory Servers (1st)
RSA Adaptive Authentication
Ranking in Authentication Systems
27th
Average Rating
6.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Authentication Systems category, the mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 3.6%, up from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RSA Adaptive Authentication is 1.2%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Authentication Systems Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Ping Identity Platform3.6%
RSA Adaptive Authentication1.2%
Other95.2%
Authentication Systems
 

Featured Reviews

SV
Senior ServiceNow Developer at Wells Fargo
Generative AI automates access reviews and provides workflow efficiencies
I work with Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC), IT Service Management (ITSM), and Customer Service Management (CSM) modules of ServiceNow. My project is related to cybersecurity. I have touched on generative AI and integrations like SOAP APIs. I have used the Ping Identity Platform for seamless…
Directorc4e7 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Cyber Security at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
We need better ease of use; the product is overly complicated
There are many use cases that we have defined based on our business needs Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features. The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated. It has taken years to implement. We used RSA…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based capabilities for handling cloud applications and providing authentication and authorization through OIDC and SAML. It also supports integrations needed for both local and internal applications, including legacy applications requiring web server access."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"It gets a mobility portal in place in conjunction with Office 365. It provides very good possibilities and it's much better than other technology that we have used before which was unstable and slower."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"I work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
"I like PingFederate."
"Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the stock tokens. That works the best for us."
"Our customer are seeing value from the product, as they experience cost reductions. They can stop fraud from their customers, then their customers can have a better experience from their services."
"Risk Engine’s risk score, eFN, GeoIP, and device binding all coming together in the Policy Rules to decide when to escalate to MFA."
"The capability to manage your business policy related to security when required without vendor involvement."
 

Cons

"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"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."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"We can choose a drop-down to search for which certificate we have to create, which is difficult."
"The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT."
"One significant challenge was ensuring smooth user migration during system upgrades in Ping."
"From the improvement perspective, they could bring IGA capability, which right now they only have in their SaaS offering."
"In the beginning, the initial setup was very complex."
"Reporting modules is one of the major areas that can be improved further."
"It has taken years to implement."
"The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated."
"I would like to see a more adaptive type of solution, something that we could use on our web pages..."
"RSA Adaptive Authentication lacks a mechanism to verify the identity of a new user in the Enrollment event workflow."
"Better filters when searching for events. The current features for current filters when searching fraud events are not very comprehensive. You can only filter by certain fields in the transaction."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"The product is costly."
"The tool is quite affordable."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"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."
"Customers need to deploy the solution in a very expensive infrastructure. RSA should should think about a less expensive infrastructure for customers because the solution costs around $100,000, and the infrastructure needed to support that solution may be even more expensive than that price."
"The pricing is $50 per head, yearly."
"You may need to opt for second best if funding is low and the number of users is huge. However, the pricing is able to be negotiated if your user figures are huge."
"Keep the proxy service layer on premises. That consumes SaaS security services on the back-end."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Authentication Systems solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise20
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
 

Questions from the Community

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
ADP, Ameritas, Partners Healthcare
Find out what your peers are saying about Ping Identity Platform vs. RSA Adaptive Authentication and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.