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

Imprivata OneSign vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

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

Imprivata OneSign
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (6th), Data Governance (8th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (6th), Access Management (4th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Single Sign-On (SSO) category, the mindshare of Imprivata OneSign is 2.0%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 8.0%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Single Sign-On (SSO)
 

Featured Reviews

IS
Reasonably priced, performs well, easy to deploy, and has responsive technical support
We use Imprivata OneSign for the single sign-on Imprivata supports single sign-on. OneSign is the name itself. It provides a service that allows users to sign in to whatever application they are using. This is the most important feature of this solution. The deployment is very quick, and the…
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 has benefited my organization in the way that it makes it more secure by making it harder to hack."
"It provides a service that allows users to sign in to whatever application they are using. This is the most important feature of this solution."
"It gets a mobility portal in place in conjunction with Office 365. It provides very good possibilities and it's much better than other technology that we have used before which was unstable and slower."
"I work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"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."
"We use the product to run different reports."
"It's convenient for users to log in through Ping using the Kerberos adapter because it doesn't require them to authenticate again."
 

Cons

"They should have a landing page."
"I would like for them to make this solution compatible with Mac OS. I would also like for them to provide a portal so that users can easily integrate it with their applications."
"In Ping Identity, we have had some issues. We've worked with logging and troubleshooting, including some firewall and security issues."
"If the solution is going to compete with Microsoft, they need to offer more unique functionality to keep their current user base."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"One significant challenge was ensuring smooth user migration during system upgrades in Ping."
"Sometimes, there are issues with its stability."
"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."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is reasonable, it's an affordable solution."
"At the moment, I believe the price is reasonable."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"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."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"The product is costly."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions are best for your needs.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
34%
Healthcare Company
24%
Computer Software Company
7%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Educational Organization
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

OneSign, Imprivata OneSign Authentication Management
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AZ Groeninge, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool Womens NHS Foundation Trust, Mahaska Health Partnership, Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Boulder Community Hospital, City of Marietta, Spencer Hospital, Southwest Washington Medical Center, South Shore Hospital
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 Imprivata OneSign vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,207 professionals have used our research since 2012.