We performed a comparison between PingFederate and RSA Authentication Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Authentication Systems solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"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."
"It stands out as a comprehensive and adaptable solution that excels in both on-premises and cloud-based authentication, offers strong security with multi-layered authentication, and boasts a well-maintained product with reliable performance."
"I have found RSA Authentication Manager to be scalable."
"It is a good solution for token identification."
"The most valuable feature is the SecurID."
"The most valuable feature is the provision part. The mapping and the logging is also very good. In addition, the troubleshooting, from a console point of view, is easy for administration and on the provisioning and logging part."
"It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten."
"Easy setup, deployment, and integration in different infrastructures, including virtual ones."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"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."
"Enhancing the user interface and expanding their marketing efforts in regions like Nigeria and West Africa could be beneficial."
"Perhaps parts of the the user interface should become more intuitive."
"We found technical support was not very responsive to our requests for assistance."
"We have encountered issue when trying to expand this particular solution for a large set of users across the country."
"Our major problem is the authentication via Microsoft, via Microsoft cloud systems. This is our major aim, to be a valued product for the future. The biggest problem is to work against cheap cloud systems. Cloud identification is our main problem at this time."
"We are not planning on using the solution in the future."
"There is room for improvement in the RSA support."
PingFederate is ranked 10th in Authentication Systems with 4 reviews while RSA Authentication Manager is ranked 13th in Authentication Systems with 10 reviews. PingFederate is rated 8.2, while RSA Authentication Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Authentication Manager writes "A highly effective and versatile solution that excels in terms of security, integration, scalability, and customer support". PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Symantec Siteminder, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory and CyberArk Identity, whereas RSA Authentication Manager is most compared with Cisco Duo, Microsoft Entra ID, RSA SecurID, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and RSA Adaptive Authentication. See our PingFederate vs. RSA Authentication Manager report.
See our list of best Authentication Systems vendors.
We monitor all Authentication Systems 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.
