We performed a comparison between Oracle Identity Governance and SailPoint IdentityIQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Provisioning Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature for us is the ability to set up connectors to various IT systems and offer a wide range of supported connectors."
"The support response time and the freedom from strange bugs and strange things happening in the software are valuable."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"Surveying is a valuable feature because it allows us to import data and see who has access to what data, for example."
"Its best feature is definitely the process design. It is quite easy and straightforward to design a process."
"The teams we work with at Omada provide great insights and support. Overall, it has been a pleasure working with them. That's the part we value the most."
"The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology."
"The most valuable feature in Omada is the governance. We work with other products and other product vendors, but the sweet spot in the market for Omada is where things are heavy on governance."
"I have found the OIM Connector framework, based on ICF, to be the most valuable feature."
"What I like most about Oracle Identity Governance is that it is a very flexible tool. It allows you to do any customization on Java as it is built on Java and you can write any customization code using Java. I also like that Oracle Identity Governance is pretty much stable. In my company, there are a lot of users, so my company prefers this solution."
"Role-based access control (RBAC) has been crucial for role-based management in my current company. Granular access restrictions based on role-based policies were beneficial."
"Password management is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Oracle Identity Governance is user lifecycle management. Certification is also a valuable feature of the solution. Oracle Identity Governance allows you to assign who has access to what, which is its basic feature."
"What I found most useful in Oracle Identity Governance, feature-wise, are provisioning, de-provisioning, and termination. Those features are very good. Oracle Identity Governance can also be easily integrated with non-Oracle products, which I find valuable."
"This solution has improved the organization in several ways, including saving many help-desk password-reset calls, IT staff productivity, and quicker user on-boarding."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible automation functionality which has optimized our user access privilege management. This has allowed us to create and delete user accounts more accurately and efficiently. This feature has enabled us to save time and resources needed to perform mundane manual tasks."
"The Certification and Provisioning features are most valuable."
"SailPoint has allowed us to ensure the right people have the right access and to the rights things."
"The most powerful feature of the solution is its platform-based approach. Unlike other solutions, this tool offers a high level of customization. It is an open and flexible platform, allowing users to tailor it to their needs. This ability to customize and adapt the solution to individual requirements makes the solution stand out as a powerful product."
"What I like most about SailPoint IdentityIQ is that it's simple to use and easy to configure and deploy."
"The compliance features are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable features of SailPoint IdentityIQ are the reporting because it is better than other solutions. The workflows can be customized to our requirements and the overall features are good."
"The access certification feature is valuable."
"It offers a single source of truth. Everything can be handled from one tier."
"It is not possible to customize reports on Omada Identity."
"Omada's performance could be better because we had some latency issues. Still, it's difficult to say how much of that is due to Omada versus the resources used by our other vendors in our on-prem environment. Considering the resources we have invested into making it run well, it's slightly slower than we would expect."
"The account management integration isn't bad, but it isn't plug-and-play like Microsoft Azure. You need some deep development knowledge to set up the connectors."
"The architecture of the entire system should also be less complex. The way they process the data is complex."
"Omada Identity has two main issues that need to be solved or improved the most. One is its setup or installation process because it's complex and cumbersome. I'm talking about the process for on-premises deployment because I've never tried the cloud version of Omada Identity. Setting up the cloud version should be much easier. The second area for improvement in Omada Identity is that it's piggybacking on Microsoft's complex way of having all kinds of add-ons, extensions, or setups, whether small or large, such as the new SQL Server, and it's cumbersome to make sure that everything works. Omada Identity is a complex solution and could still be improved."
"The solution should be made more agile for customers to own or configure."
"There's a challenge with handling large amounts of data in this system."
"If you're running Omada on a cloud service, you may have some issues deploying the newest release. Sometimes, the latest release doesn't adapt to the processes we have already installed. Identity Access Management is a critical system for our organization, and we need to ensure that everyone has the same access as they did before the release."
"Simplify & add more functionality to Identity Cloud Service (IDCS)."
"The user interface experience needs to be improved."
"The platform could be enhanced with additional features."
"OIA needs to improve its governance features."
"t is too complex, has too many bugs, and is an immature product, even the best case, beta version."
"Oracle Identity Governance, particularly version 12c, can handle multiple scenarios, but for a regular user, I found the use cases not that extensive, so this is an area for improvement. The implementation process for Oracle Identity Governance is also a bit more complex than how you implement competitor products, and this is another area for improvement in the solution. Technical support for Oracle Identity Governance also needs some improvement. Another area for improvement in Oracle Identity Governance is its documentation. Currently, it's lacking when compared to SailPoint. What I'd like to see in the next release of Oracle Identity Governance is a bit more scope for AI-based Identity governance. If the solution has built-in intelligence, that will give it more leverage. Another feature I'd like to see in Oracle Identity Governance in the future is the option for managers to provide access to others via mobile devices or phones."
"I have yet to see its full functionality exercised in my organization."
"Oracle Identity Governance can capture a lot of loads, it's stable. However, we once had a problem two years ago, but it is now resolved. There are some issues still present, but they're operational. They don't impact the customers. There are some improvements that can be done."
"What it doesn't do is provide notice in the event of a vulnerability or offense from the security."
"There are various functions that don't work in IdentityIQ, including the access request reminder, which doesn't go to the approvals in the proper format, so it's hard for users to read."
"The UI of the solution could be more customizable so we could change the workflows to suit our needs."
"The user interface is not very user-friendly."
"If there's a price reduction for SailPoint IdentityIQ, that would be helpful. Another area for improvement in the product is the technical support, which needs to be more friendly to customers."
"The advanced provisioning features require more improvement."
"Scalability is hard, especially when you are doing it in real time."
"The UI is complex."
Oracle Identity Governance is ranked 4th in User Provisioning Software with 66 reviews while SailPoint IdentityIQ is ranked 1st in User Provisioning Software with 61 reviews. Oracle Identity Governance is rated 7.4, while SailPoint IdentityIQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Oracle Identity Governance writes "A scalable solution designed to meet the requirements of medium and large-sized companies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SailPoint IdentityIQ writes "Flexible, easy to customize, and not too difficult to set up". Oracle Identity Governance is most compared with One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Saviynt, Microsoft Identity Manager and ForgeRock, whereas SailPoint IdentityIQ is most compared with Saviynt, One Identity Manager, Microsoft Entra ID, ForgeRock and NetIQ Identity Manager. See our Oracle Identity Governance vs. SailPoint IdentityIQ report.
See our list of best User Provisioning Software vendors and best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all User Provisioning Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
Here follow my inputs about your questions concerning SailPoint IQ and Oracle.
WHERE DOES IT COMES FROM?
1. As representatives of SailPoint told me in 2008, SailPoint IQ was designed in 2005 by reusing the functional and technical requirements of SocGen Corporate Investment Banking (I participated to the initial design in 2004 in Paris… we live in a small world).
2. Oracle Identity Governance was formerly RBAC X purchased by Sun Microsystems then selected as the Identity Analytics components by Oracle.
WHAT ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THAT?
Both solutions are based on the Role Based Access Control model (RBAC) consisting of telling who occupies some business roles to be granted more or less consistent list of authorizations.
This is a model of the second generation while the NIST envisioned up to 6 generations in 2009! So… it’s a pretty old model.
IF ONE ORGANIZATION SUCCEEDS TO MAKE IT WITH RBAC
If one succeeds to implement this model, then it is possible to tell:
1. Who should have access to what by occupying a role that has to be mined with a half automated process that is pretty laboring and expensive,
2. Who has ‘’out role’’ entitlements to be terminated. Reviews of entitlements can be focused on ‘’Out roles’’ and even if they don’t understand the descriptions of authorizations, managers can take a decision.
HEAVY PREREQUISITES TO MAKE IT
LABOR, TIME AND CASH BECAUSE OF HEAVY PREREQUISITES
If one large organization is willing to satisfy the core prerequisite of these 2 solutions, it is necessary:
1. to spend 30 to 60 minutes for each department of an organization to mine User Roles and to associate a list of authorizations that are impossible to understand by any business analyst,
2. then spend about an hour with each manager to validate the roles and associated entitlements (impossible to understand by managers as well),
3. last but not least, implement the roles and lists of entitlements.
REAL USE CASE IN THE USA
Large organizations are totally unable to implement such an approach for following reasons:
1. ..X for example used SailPoint IQ and mined 1.500 roles instead of estimated 15.000 (low estimation),
2. ..X was unable to validate roles because managers could not understand labels of authorizations such as: ZZX00152, ZX215521, zz_top_group_senior,…
3. it would have been:
a. too long to make it for 126.000 employees / 10 team members in average = 12.600 work units located in about 100 countries * 30 minutes in average = 787 man days without vacations, travels, coordination!
b. too expensive:
i. 1 role analyst * 30 minutes in average * 80$ per hour * 12.600 units = 504.000$ for role mining only
ii. 1 role analyst + 1 manager * 220$ per hour * 12.600 units = 2.772 K$ for role validation
iii. Implementation of roles into IAM solution such as Oracle Identity Manager or IBM SIM is a technical thing that costs more…
IF ONE ORGANIZATION CANNOT MAKE IT BECAUSE MANAGERS DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT MEANS ‘’ZX023455``
SailPoint and Oracle have nice features to add translations to entitlements.
The thing is that where you have several ten thousand labels to translate…
* it takes time and lots of $ before to deliver.
* People around a table will take time to come to a shared understanding (if they are very motivated)
IF ONE ORGANIZATION CANNOT MAKE IT BECAUSE IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSLATE ‘’ZX023455``
* SailPoint proposes to use Risk Based approach and to add Risk Criteria to several ten thousands labels… (sic) to be considered from a Risk Standpoint…
* Oracle proposes to use indicators and requests and to let managers think about a decision to be taken thanks to dashboards and reports. Some kind of Business Intelligence.
WHAT IS THE OPTION?
1. ...X came to the conclusion that it was not possible to make it with SailPoint IQ alone. A custom algorithm is necessary to enhance SailPoint capabilities.
2. The Gartner Group exposed the issue for the last 3 years. Advanced analytics and Self Learning systems will make it.
3. We, at EasyPatternZ:
a. are the first to make it with Artificial Intelligence.
b. take about 5 seconds per work unit in average to deliver the answer to the question ‘’Who has access to what, why, whatever the circumstances’’ better and faster than any leader.
c. made it 3 times since 2013. The Federal Government of Canada will qualify it between April and July this year with 23.000 employees.
d. Are watched by USCIS.
My experience in IAM is with HPE Aruba ClearPass & Cisco ISE. A couple of other competing products, such as the ForeScout and Auconet products that were evaluated at a high level, but didn’t progress further.
I’m not at all familiar with Sailpoint IdentityIQ and Oracle Identity Governance and couldn’t provide any meaningful insight into either of them.
I am not an SC so my response is very salesy :).
Sailpiont is more of a next gen solution in the IAM space.
If an organization was a huge Oracle shop I would have them consider Oracle – if not I would be heading to Sailpoint.
*Sailpoint is as robust but does not have the legacy issues that Oracle has to deal with which makes it easier to implement/operate
Sailpoint will also be lower in price.
Basically the question is 'what will you achive ?'. I agree with the comment above, Oracle is known to have a high TCO due to complexity. The fact is also that Oracle claims to ease the end-user experience but this mean a mandatory extensive preparation in order to provide users with accurate and in context information. Sailpoint IIQ is probably easier to implement and indeed is efficient in respect of RBAC and ABAC or preferably some kind of hybrid modeling. Don't forget IAM needs a very good preparation (analysis, modeling, inventory, classification, process analysis etc.) From my experience, IIQ is able to respond to complex needs and is far cheaper than Oracle and this allows to invest in added value activities (extra licence). Sorry if this is not a factual response in terms of pros & conts between OIG and IIQ but IIQ is more affordable and from my point of view covers all needed capabilities to build a strong IAM solution.
I think at a high level, both are going to provide the same functions. You'll see the main differences in how one has to implement workflows, UIs, and rules. Where Oracle uses BPML, ADF and OES, respectively, SailPoint is more Java-centric, IMHO. I found OIG's SOD rule definition UI hard to use and some serious limitations in its hierarchal role model. I think SailPoint has surpassed OIG in its extensibility with the framework in its 7.0 release. I would definitely evaluate roadmap if you want to stay on-prem.