"The solution is easy to use for our managers."
"A valuable feature of Siteminder is the way it handles bulk traffic. The features it has, in terms of routing the traffic and load balancing, are good."
"It's quite scalable."
"Symantec Siteminder Is both scalable and stable."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"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 technical support could be better."
"An area Siteminder could improve on is that there are a few limitations, in terms of new protocols for OpenID. If I want to have different scopes, the features are limited. They also do not have APIs exposed, which is a major drawback. API is a feature I would like to see included in the next release."
"The support could be faster."
"Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved."
PingID is ranked 6th in Authentication Systems with 2 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 9th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. PingID is rated 8.0, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of PingID writes "Stable, popular with customers, and has a good mobile application". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Useful for single sign-on and handles bulk traffic well". PingID is most compared with Microsoft Authenticator, SailPoint IdentityIQ, RSA SecurID Access, Azure Active Directory (Azure AD) and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with Okta Workforce Identity, Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), PingFederate, ForgeRock and Auth0. See our PingID vs. Symantec Siteminder report.
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.
