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

ForgeRock vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 27, 2025

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

ForgeRock
Ranking in Access Management
9th
Ranking in Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
30
Ranking in other categories
Identity Management (IM) (12th)
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Access Management
4th
Ranking in Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (4th), Authentication Systems (6th), Data Governance (8th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (6th), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of ForgeRock is 6.7%, down from 6.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 8.1%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

Trisha Bhola - PeerSpot reviewer
It's easier to customize and maintain our code
I worked on two different projects based on ForgeRock, and both are automated deployments. One is a UI-based deployment. It's an automated process using some scripts. The deployments are done through Octopus, so it's also automated. We first deploy the essential components of AM and then implement additional configurations like Amster Imports. After that, we import all the SAML Federation data and add some certificates. We have two teams of five and three team members working on the different deployment processes. One is working on the dev side, another is looking at the higher environment, and one is managing the data. In another project, I'm the only developer. We also deploy on the dev environments so that anyone can test new features, configurations, and client requirements. They can test it on the dev environment, but a team of four people manages higher environments. The Access Management component involves the most customization, which takes around 15 to 20 minutes because of the need to import the Amster configuration. If another deployment is simultaneously happening, it may be a little slower and take around 30 minutes. The other components, like the user data stores, take about five to seven minutes. It's another five to 10 minutes for Identity Management. After deployment, the maintenance is mostly checking for security vulnerabilities. If ForgeRock shares security vulnerabilities or advisories, we check to see if there is something inside we need to maintain. Other than that, we just install updates when they add features each month.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution's most valuable feature is the authentication for the consumers. The integration with other third-party applications is excellent."
"Easy to customize and adaptable to any environment."
"This is a stable solution. When you do experience any issues, you will see it in your DB logs or audit logs so you can easily reach a conclusion of might be causing it."
"Installation and configuration are pretty easy for ForgeRock OpenIDM."
"The solution is very scalable. We have a lot of users that have been increasing over the years that we have been using it. We have approximately 20,000 users."
"In terms of the tool's operational efficiency, ForgeRock Access Management is used in a lot of environments, different regions, and in different stages of production environments."
"ForgeRock products are customizable, and the out-of-the-box features are solid, too. I primarily use the OIDC compliance features. It's just a configuration. it's easy to set up and customize trees. We can add our own features if necessary. Banks and corporations have different standards and specific validations."
"The product is easy to set up."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"I work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering."
"It is a very stable solution."
"It's convenient for users to log in through Ping using the Kerberos adapter because it doesn't require them to authenticate again."
 

Cons

"I think the upgrade process is sometimes a little complicated and there are failures that occur."
"It should have a better user interface. Its flexibility should also be improved. It is not about simplifying; it is more about flexibility. Each company has its own requirements, and ForgeRock can provide more flexibility in terms of the use of existing modules to implement features for the customers."
"The solution's documentation is not very good, and they do not give more details."
"The identity management model needs a bit of improvement."
"I find that it's quite expensive for just an open-source system. Support is quite expensive."
"The only problem with ForgeRock is that it is derived from an open-source product, so sometimes it's a bit unstable."
"The solution requires more simplified customization. However, part of the problem is my clients determining their own preferences. Technology can help and do many things, but you have to define your own policies to ensure that the solution or service works within those parameters. Helping customers understand their business and different processes is another issue not relating to the functionality of this solution."
"In future releases, I would like to see easier integration with other solutions, like facial recognition and KYC solutions with biometric onboarding."
"We had issues with the stability."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"There is room for improvement in the solution, particularly in security."
"PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature."
"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."
"The product's community has certain shortcomings that require improvement."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ForgeRock is an expensive solution."
"It's a bit pricey and could be more competitive."
"Its price is comparable to other products in the market."
"Its licensing is on a yearly basis, but it also depends on the contract that you have with the vendor. They have multiple types of contracts. There are additional costs to the standard licensing fees. If you need some of the features, you have to pay more."
"ForgeRock's pricing is more competitive than other products."
"The pricing of the solution is fair but I do not have the full details."
"We have multiple clients we are looking at right now. We are at a very small number, however, the idea and the goal is to grow. We are looking at about $100,000 and $50,000 a minimum a month cost. That'd be minimum maybe in a couple of years."
"The license is purchased annually per user. However, you can negotiate if you are signing for a longer period of time. When comparing this solution to others on the market it is priced fair, it is not at the top of the price range or at the bottom end."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"The tool is quite affordable."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"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."
"The product is costly."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
12%
Insurance Company
7%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about ForgeRock?
The most valuable features of ForgeRock are social login and data protection.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for ForgeRock?
Our company was considering switching back to Keycloak from ForgeRock, so as to not pay any license fees. ForgeRock also supports M-PIN and biometric features that Keycloak does not provide. My com...
What needs improvement with ForgeRock?
In the past, I saw that Splunk was integrated with a testing portal, and then it was integrated with Slack. I don't think ForgeRock directly supports integrations with Slack, making it an area wher...
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.
 

Also Known As

ForgeRock Identity Platform, ForgeRock OpenIDM
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Geico, Thomson Reuters, Salesforce, McKesson, Trinet, SKY, BNP Paribas, Deloitte, Capgemini, North Western University
Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Find out what your peers are saying about ForgeRock vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.