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

Oracle Access Manager vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Oracle Access Manager
Ranking in Access Management
13th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.6
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Access Management
4th
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), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (2nd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of Oracle Access Manager is 2.4%, up from 1.5% 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

Upendar G - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficiently manage applications with secure single sign-on and streamlined operations
Access Manager allows us to efficiently manage a broad spectrum of applications while ensuring secure, single-page application access. Its ability to consolidate applications on a single interface streamlines operations significantly. The product is highly secure and reliable, especially in managing user access across various platforms. Multi-factor authentication enhances security by requiring additional verification steps.
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

"Overall, I rate Oracle Access Manager nine out of ten for its extensive capabilities."
"Access Manager allows us to efficiently manage a broad spectrum of applications while ensuring secure, single-page application access."
"The scalability of the solution is good. We haven't felt we've been restricted from expanding as necessary and we haven't heard of any issues from our clients."
"The MFA is the most valuable aspect."
"The product supports customization."
"The product allows customization via custom code."
"In general, the customization that is offered is very good. The company that I am working with currently is using this feature quite extensively."
"The product was built to be scalable."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"What I like best about PingID is that it's very user-friendly. PingID is well-built as a developer tool and regularly upgrades and updates via patches. I also like that PingID has clear documents that will help you integrate it with other solutions."
"From a security perspective, I highly value the product's biometric authentication methods such as FIDO, FaceID, YubiKey, and the mobile app."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes."
"It is a scalable solution."
 

Cons

"There could be some improvements in the documentation and overall knowledge base of the solution."
"The product is complicated and difficult to install and configure."
"The solution's lifecycle management is troublesome. Also, another area of issue in the solution is the part involving documentation of certain features."
"Although Oracle Access Manager is generally stable, we experienced issues with multi-domain configurations and web agent settings."
"The initial implementation can definitely be improved because you have to work on several components to configure it correctly."
"The user interface is a bit complicated and could be made more lightweight. Simplifying the installation process, perhaps through a VDAR-based installation, would also be beneficial."
"To improve Oracle Access Manager, they should consider integrating more policies and enhancing automation, especially in managing server load and cache cleanup."
"The mobile access to the solution isn't ideal. They should work to improve its functionality."
"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 is not customizable."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"They could enhance the product's device tracking for better zero-trust security would be beneficial. Currently, it tracks IPs well but lacks detailed device information, which is crucial from a security standpoint."
"One significant challenge was ensuring smooth user migration during system upgrades in Ping."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"There is room for improvement in the solution, particularly in security."
"PingAccess can only have one token provider, and you cannot enable two different token providers simultaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is really good and it is flexible because they have CPU licenses. The license is a one-time-only purchase."
"The product is a little expensive."
"I cannot comment on the exact pricing because Oracle has different licensing models for other clients, making it flexible."
"The tool is affordable."
"On a scale where one is a high price, and ten is a low price, I rate the solution a one. Purchasing a license for the solution is very expensive now."
"Can be expensive as a solution."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"The product is costly."
"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."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"The tool is quite affordable."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Access Manager?
Oracle Access Manager is more expensive than alternatives like Okta and CyberArk. Although it offers robust security, the cost might not justify its features for organizations with fewer applications.
What needs improvement with Oracle Access Manager?
To improve Oracle Access Manager, they should consider integrating more policies and enhancing automation, especially in managing server load and cache cleanup. Enhancements in automation would eas...
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

No data available
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

SekerBank, University of Melbourne
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 Oracle Access Manager vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,651 professionals have used our research since 2012.