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

IBM Security Verify Access vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Security Verify Access
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
14th
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
17th
Ranking in Access Management
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Identity Management (IM) (24th)
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
4th
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
5th
Ranking in Access Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (5th), Data Governance (6th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Featured Reviews

Jared Ochieng - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers multiple authentication methods like tokens and one-time passwords
The authentication process with IBM Security Verify Access is good and is considered one of the best identity and access management solutions. It helps with multi-factor authentication. It offers multiple authentication methods like tokens and one-time passwords, enhancing security. It also includes features like password vaults and single sign-on, streamlining the access process for remote and local users across different solutions. The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options. The policy control feature allows you to set authentication measures and policies for your organization's identity governance. This feature helps create standardized policies and organize them into groups based on departments or specific needs. It simplifies access management for both administrators and users. IBM Security Verify Access can be integrated with almost any solution using APIs. The time required for integration depends on whether the solution is out of the box or custom. Out-of-the-box solutions can be integrated quickly, typically within a few days or hours, while custom solutions may require additional steps and take longer to integrate.
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

"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"I like PingFederate."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"From a security perspective, I highly value the product's biometric authentication methods such as FIDO, FaceID, YubiKey, and the mobile app."
"The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based capabilities for handling cloud applications and providing authentication and authorization through OIDC and SAML. It also supports integrations needed for both local and internal applications, including legacy applications requiring web server access."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
 

Cons

"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding. We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium. As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"There is room for improvement in the solution, particularly in security."
"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."
"We had issues with the stability."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is not expensive. It depends on the number of users."
"The license and costs depend on the amount range of users you have. For just approximately 2,000 users, the price is practical and fair. However, when you have 20,000 users, it starts to become really expensive, and the discount per user is not attractive enough to go ahead and purchase."
"It costs about 300K AED for a year. Its pricing is a bit on the higher end, but in comparison to other products in the market, its price is still better. There are lots of other products that are very costly."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"The product is costly."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Insurance Company
18%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Security Access Manager?
The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via ema...
What needs improvement with IBM Security Access Manager?
The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial.
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

IBM Security Verify Access (SVA), IBM Security Access Manager, ISAM
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

POST Luxembourg
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 IBM Security Verify Access vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.