| Microsoft Practice Lead at Unify Solutions | 4.0 | Having used FIM, I find it an extensible, reliable IAM framework that improves efficiency. Its complex deployment needs careful planning and specialist resources. While stable and scalable, the UI needs modernizing, and TCO is significant. |
| FIM Specialist with 51-200 employees | 3.5 | I've used this solution for seven years and find its password management valuable. It improves productivity and reduces costs, though reporting needs work. Setup is easy, but SAP/Oracle deployments can be tricky. |
| Consultant with 51-200 employees | 3.0 | I found this product valuable for automating access and requests with an easy setup. However, it suffered from performance, stability, and scalability issues due to SQL deadlocks and bugs, despite good support. |
| Managing Consultant at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 3.5 | I found the synchronization server stable and effective for managing Active Directory content. However, the integrated portal/workflow server disappointed me with its performance and complex workflow management. Upfront planning is crucial. |
| IAM Consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees | 4.0 | I find FIM an easily deployable and supportive identity management solution, superior to alternatives. It offers excellent provisioning and group management, enhancing security and efficiency, but I see room for improvement in reporting and portal customization. |
| Working on Identity and Access Management at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees | 5.0 | I find FIM 2010 SP1 a good, stable, and scalable identity management product, offering improvements like portal-based DL management and SSPR. Planning setup is key, and technical support is strong. |
| Wintel System Administrator at a manufacturing company with 501-1,000 employees | 3.5 | We value FIM for synchronizing HR and AD, creating a single source of truth, improving service request authorizations. However, we experience stability issues with 80% uptime and faced SharePoint compatibility challenges, though support was excellent. |
| Identity Management Engineer at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees | 3.0 | I value its sync engine and cost savings. However, it required significant scripting despite being "code-less," led to database stability issues, and customer service is poor. I believe it's best for organizations without prior identity management solutions. |