We performed a comparison between Safe-T Secure Application Access and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Auth0, Okta and others in Access Management."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"
"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."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"It is reliable."
"It provides the breadth and the width to provide solutions for the different kinds of technologies which we have."
"The Directory is secure. It's our user store, and it's important to keep our members safe. The product does well with that."
"Symantec Siteminder Is both scalable and stable."
"It's quite scalable."
"The single sign-on is the solution's most valuable feature"
"The most valuable feature is that it meets the requirements of the customer. You have a lot of features in the product. Every product has them, but the question is, are these products going to meet the requirement of the customer?"
"I liked the debugging part. There are only two files (trace file and log file) that you need to look into while performing debugging, and the logs give you the exact info on where and what needs to be fixed."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
"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."
"I would prefer to see their SAML integration be a more streamlined and easier interface."
"We would like to the OAuth be more stable, more issues being fixed rather than not."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"They need to make configurations easier, and not have the engineer having to guess what will happen when he changes a particular setting."
"I think they need to integrate some of the newer types of authentication into the product. I'm not seeing the innovation when it comes to biometrics in the product."
"The tech support has not been very good for us so we don't use them anymore. We have had some issues. Nobody is perfect."
"The GUIs are not very clear, especially when integrating with other products from CA."
"The initial setup was complex, painful. But that is to be expected of any new setup. When you're a big bank like us, any kind of migration to a new product is hard. I expect it to be painful, and it was painful. But it's not something that you can avoid."
Earn 20 points
Safe-T Secure Application Access is ranked 27th in Access Management while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 17th in Access Management with 69 reviews. Safe-T Secure Application Access is rated 7.8, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Safe-T Secure Application Access writes "The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". Safe-T Secure Application Access is most compared with , whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingID and PingAccess.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Access Management 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.