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

Ping Identity Platform vs Safe-T Secure Application Access 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 Access Management
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
29
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)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in Access Management
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (42nd), ZTNA (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 7.8%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

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.
it_user790473 - PeerSpot reviewer
The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible
We have a lot of in-house applications that we must integrate with a secure email system. We are a financial institute, so we must use it to send emails to our customers securely, because these emails contain sensitive customer data. The architecture of the product is very open to development, plug-ins and integration with in-house systems. We have been able integrate this system into our CRM and other operational systems. We didn't find that kind of flexibility in other secure email products. We have also been able to customize the user interface so it is branded and able to "talk" our marketing language. There is also a local Israeli vendor that helps us to improve the product, add the new features.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app."
"It is a very stable solution."
"It offers robust features and customization options that justify the cost."
"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 work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
"It's pretty stable as a product."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
 

Cons

"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
"Sometimes, there are issues with its stability."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
"The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT."
"PingID classifies the type of environment into internal and external, which is an area for improvement because you need to take additional steps to trust internal and external users."
"We have encountered instances where it is not easy to do authentication."
"In the beginning, the initial setup was very complex."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"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."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about Ping Identity Platform vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.