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

Imanami GroupID vs One Identity Active Roles comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 9, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Imanami GroupID
Ranking in User Provisioning Software
11th
Ranking in Active Directory Management
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (22nd)
One Identity Active Roles
Ranking in User Provisioning Software
5th
Ranking in Active Directory Management
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
19
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the User Provisioning Software category, the mindshare of Imanami GroupID is 1.2%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of One Identity Active Roles is 6.3%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
User Provisioning Software
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Cauthorn - PeerSpot reviewer
Jun 2, 2022
Simplifies the task of managing groups and is affordable and easy to implement
I'd like to see it be able to do more than just groups. I'd like it to be able to do some things with email distribution lists as well. It can do that, but there were a few things that were limiting. It was difficult to get it set up, particularly with Azure in the cloud. I'd like that to be a little bit smoother. I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools. We've got a ton of groups, and it does take quite a while to do nightly processing. This is something that definitely needs improvement.
JosephChandrasekaram - PeerSpot reviewer
Oct 16, 2023
Single interface and workflows simplify AD and Azure AD management efficiency and security
I use it primarily for granting, managing, and auditing access The ways Active Roles has improved the way we operate are through workflows and user onboarding, automatic user management, group permissioning, adding users to the right groups based on the department, and distribution list creation…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system. Based on that job code, we use the query tool and say that anybody who is in this job code gets these groups added to them, or conversely, if they change job codes, it removes the ones that they shouldn't have and adds the one they should. That runs every night, and the next day, everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"The provisioning and deprovisioning saves a lot of time and skips a lot of errors."
"Another good feature is the change history. It's centralized in a single place and allows us to manage people's Active Directory domains from a central location. We can also drill down into individual objects in a troubleshooting or even an auditing situation. We can show evidence to auditors by drilling down into the individual history. It gives you all the history of what happened around an individual object. That is something that would be almost impossible to do in Active Directory, or extremely complicated."
"In comparison to native Active Directory tools, using Active Roles for delegation is so much better. It uses an access template and that makes it easy to see who can access what. In fact, you can do that for many objects as well."
"The best part of this Active Roles is the workflow engine. It features an industry-leading workflow automation feature. It's a visual PowerShell that allows task interruption."
"The AD and AAD management features of this solution are really good... They offer added value by showing more fields such as password age and the statuses of some things that we normally wouldn't see."
"The solution is stable."
"Instead of deleting accounts, we like the deprovision option so that we can reverse any accidental deletions. It also gives a higher level of quality control in terms of enforcing any number of variables, such as making sure that an account has a description entered before the account can be created. We can backtrack and know the history of it that way."
"The biggest thing for us is Active Roles saves a lot of man-hours in keeping groups up-to-date manually or trying to write some sort of script that you have to run, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Instead of when every time somebody joins a department, then somebody has to remember to put in a request to add "meet user Joe" to this group, the solution does it automatically for us. Therefore, it saves our business and IT staff time because they do not have to process requests since Active Role can do it for them."
 

Cons

"The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO."
"I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools."
"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"It also has workflows and those are really powerful, but there are no built-in workflows. When it comes to them, it's empty. I would personally love for it to come with ten, 15, or 20 workflows where each achieves a certain task... I could just look at how each is done, clone them, copy them, modify them the way I want them, and be good to go. Right now we have to invent things from scratch."
"When doing a workflow, we would like a bit better feedback on the screen, as we're trying to get it to work. For example, there is a "Find" function that you need set up in a workflow to do some of the automation. It is not the easiest to get a result from those finds when you're trying to do that. In the MMC, they have a couple different types of workflows. In this particular case, we use their workflow functionality to find all of X within the environment, then if you find it, do X, Y, and Z. You can have multiple steps. When you do that search function within that workflow, it's really hard to find out, "Is my search working?" It would be nice if there was some feedback on the screen so you could see if your search is working properly within the workflow."
"For the AAD management feature, it needs to improve the objects that we can manage and the security."
"Another issue we have with the product is that we run a lot of custom tasks. You have to program them to run on one particular host and there's no automatic failover to a second host. If that host is down when a task is supposed to run, it has to wait until the next time it runs when that host is up."
"The solution needs an attestation process that includes certification and recertification attestation."
"The way you can search groups could be better."
"The ability to send logs to a SIEM would be very beneficial."
"There are some features that we think should be included in their next release. We think these things would take them to the next level: the ability to completely force or limit any dynamic group processing to specific servers, change-tracking reporting of virtual attributes, and the ability to use files as inputs to automation workloads. These things have also been talked about. Knowing them, they're probably working on them."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is on a yearly basis, and it has the product license fee and the support for it. So, there is the licensing fee, and there is the annual maintenance that includes the support. I don't remember exactly, but we're probably paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000 for it per year. We've got a pretty large implementation of it, and for the amount that we do, it is a pretty good deal. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The price is reasonable. It costs us about 1 million Danish kroner annually, and we also spend about half as much on consultants."
"The pricing is on the higher end."
"The pricing for Active Roles is expensive but not as expensive as other solutions like Okta."
"The licensing model is a simple user-based model, not that much complicated."
"It's expensive."
"It's fairly priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which User Provisioning Software solutions are best for your needs.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Imanami GroupID?
The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO.
What advice do you have for others considering Imanami GroupID?
The notifications, approvals and emails are very smooth in Imanami GroupID. I rate it an eight out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Active Roles?
The pricing for Active Roles is expensive but not as expensive as other solutions like Okta.
What needs improvement with One Identity Active Roles?
Active Roles can fix many little problems that have never been resolved and have lingered for years, continuing to annoy people. For example, you can't search by object GUIDs. The manual says you c...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Quest Active Roles
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Grant Thornton LLP
City of Frankfurt, Moore Public Schools, George Washington University, Transavia Airlines, Howard County, MD. See all stories at OneIdentity.com/casestudies
Find out what your peers are saying about Imanami GroupID vs. One Identity Active Roles and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
814,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.