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

Ping Identity Platform vs Tools4ever HelloID comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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 Single Sign-On (SSO)
4th
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (6th), Data Governance (8th), Access Management (4th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
Tools4ever HelloID
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
22nd
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
29th
Average Rating
9.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) category, the mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 5.3%, down from 7.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tools4ever HelloID is 1.0%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
 

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.
A flexible solution for application management, and facilitated centralization of our IAM
We use HelloID for ourselves and clients, so we need to manage a lot of client environments at once. Functionality to manage this situation is not yet available. When something needs to be changed with the sign-on policies, we have to apply this manually to every client environment that we have.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 like PingFederate."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"What I like best about PingID is that it's very user-friendly. PingID is well-built as a developer tool and regularly upgrades and updates via patches. I also like that PingID has clear documents that will help you integrate it with other solutions."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It offers robust features and customization options that justify the cost."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Now we can easily control who has access to which client or client application."
"You don't need to be a specialist in Identity and Access Management solutions to understand the software and configure it."
"The most valuable feature is the option to use SSO from different sources such as Microsoft AD, ADFS, Azure AD, SAML, form-based, etc."
"The Single Sign-On capabilities are endless and we haven't found a single app so far that couldn't be set up for SSO."
 

Cons

"Some colleagues have mentioned API connectivity, data security, and privacy issues."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"We can choose a drop-down to search for which certificate we have to create, which is difficult."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"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."
"The product is not customizable."
"We had issues with the stability."
"When something needs to be changed with the sign-on policies, we have to apply this manually to every client environment that we have."
"I would like to have the built-in provisioning module improved."
"Integration with other Tools4ever applications such as SSRPM and IAM would be nice."
"Sometimes it generates a username that is not unique, but at the time of this writing, it is not possible to generate a new one that is unique."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is quite affordable."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"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."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"The product is costly."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"In terms of costs and pricing, this solution is worth every penny."
"Since HelloID is very reasonably priced, the return-on-investment is fast."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) 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%
Outsourcing Company
20%
Government
14%
Educational Organization
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

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
HelloID
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Willis Independent School District, David Douglas School District
Find out what your peers are saying about Ping Identity Platform vs. Tools4ever HelloID and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.