No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Ping Identity Platform vs SecureAuth Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

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
6th
Ranking in Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (6th), Authentication Systems (7th), Data Governance (11th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (5th), Directory Servers (1st)
SecureAuth Identity Platform
Ranking in Access Management
21st
Ranking in Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)
14th
Average Rating
5.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
User Provisioning Software (17th), Identity Management (IM) (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 5.5%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SecureAuth Identity Platform is 2.3%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Ping Identity Platform5.5%
SecureAuth Identity Platform2.3%
Other92.2%
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

AmitRathod - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Analyst at Toll Holdings Limited
Single sign-on has simplified access while adaptive authentication protects complex user journeys
Regarding areas for improvement in Ping Identity Platform, there is not much. In terms of licensing and implementation costs, it has premium pricing, and it has a very complex implementation. It provides greater feasibility, but it takes a very long time in terms of complete building. There is a very limited number of legacy support, which can pose potential difficulties in integrating with certain older or legacy systems. Additionally, issue troubleshooting can be difficult at times. Sometimes issues can be difficult to diagnose and require extensive technical expertise. There is also a very steep learning curve for administrative purposes and potential difficulties with offline authentication scenarios.
it_user710517 - PeerSpot reviewer
Identity and Access Engineer at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Valuable features include access request and certification. Application integration, reporting, and certification could be improved.
Valuable features include access request, certification, and password management Provide centralised identity-access management Application integration, reporting, and certification could be improved More than three years The product is only as good as the data you use Moving from v7.x to v8.x…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Ping Identity Platform can provide a solution for both workforce identity and access management and also for consumer identity and access management, which is CIAM."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"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."
"We use the product to run different reports."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"The self-service functionality for password/access management reduced our need for manual intervention."
"For v8.4, you can work easily if you stick to OOTB, however, should you require customization, then the tool is very flexible using SQL/VB knowledge to extend."
 

Cons

"It has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution."
"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."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"If the solution is going to compete with Microsoft, they need to offer more unique functionality to keep their current user base."
"The timing of the token validity, if it could be extended, would be great. I'm not sure if there is even an option to configure these types of settings."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"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."
"Moving from v7.x to v8.x is not easy. You need Courion expertise and skills to upgrade and migrate the data."
"Stability was a constant concern. The application was plagued with memory leak issues from initial installation and through multiple major/minor version upgrades."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"The product is costly."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Construction Company
12%
Retailer
9%
Educational Organization
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise22
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingFederate?
Regarding pricing for Ping Identity Platform, I would rate it eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with PingAccess?
The areas where I think PingFederate needs room for improvement include that the most significant area I would recommend is that things such as redirects still do not have majority of the applicati...
What is your primary use case for PingAccess?
The main use case for PingFederate is that we are maintaining the centralized single sign-on with DuroSengel and Carabras as the two main instances to review. If any application is hosted outside o...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
SecureAuth Identity Governance, Core Access Assurance Suite, Courion Access Assurance Suite
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Alegent Health, Associated Materials, Brookdale Senior Living, NV Energy, Woodforest Bank, Wellspan Health
Find out what your peers are saying about Ping Identity Platform vs. SecureAuth Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,417 professionals have used our research since 2012.