Omada Identity Reviews

Our primary use cases are around employee life cycle processes. Employees join us, extend their contracts, move around, and leave us. Omada is connected to our HR system as well as SAP, Microsoft Exchange, and Active Directory.

We also use it for updating our employee master data and use the request management, covering about 900 employees.

We are an Omada partner and reseller.

The best feature in Omada Identity is that it enables us to implement standardized employee life cycle processes so that we don't have to create them ourselves. We can then use the standard workflows.

The breadth and scope of the solution’s IGA features also fulfill our requirements. 

We are trying to use Omada's standards and to adapt our processes. But we have had some trouble with the bad documentation. This is something that they could improve on. It has not been possible for us to analyze some of the problems so far, based on the documentation. We always need consultants. The documentation should include some implementation hints and some guidelines for implementing the processes. It's an area that could definitely be improved.

We have been using Omada Identity for about a year.

We have not had any major issues with the system so far.

We are planning to implement more and more of these standard processes and to connect more target systems to it.

We haven't submitted any support tickets to Omada so far because we have been solving our issues with consultants.

Our previous solution was developed in-house by my colleagues. We switched to Omada because the old solution did not have any standards. In addition, the components it used were end-of-life and we decided to use software that offers more standards out-of-the-box.

The initial setup was complex. We have so many different stakeholders in our company and they all have their specific requirements, but we were trying to standardize things. We have struggled with all the requirements and have tried to reduce the special implementations to a standard.

Our implementation of Omada took about half a year.

In terms of maintaining the solution, we have four people involved. Two are technical application managers who are in charge of the operation of the system. And we have two guys who are mainly dealing with the implementation of the employee processes, connecting to the target systems, as well as some scripting.

We used consultants from Omada. Our experience with them was okay.

So far, we have not saved money compared to our previous solution because we are struggling with some internal issues. We have had some trouble with our HR data, but we expect that we will save money, using Omada, by the end of this year.

Because we are a partner and an IT service provider, we have a special licensing agreement because we are planning to offer Omada Identity to our customers. Our licensing and pricing model differs from the standard.

Because we operate this on-premises and just connect it to internal systems, we have had no security issues so far.

Be sure to use Omada's standards and try to reduce special implementations. You may have to adapt your processes to reduce all the specific requirements from the stakeholders. But my advice is to reduce the special requirements to a minimum.

Also, because you're connecting the HR system to the employee master data and organizational data, all this data has to be clean. Otherwise, you will have a lot of trouble with Omada. Make sure your master data is in good shape.

I am the functional manager. I use the solution for user access management.

The product provides good security. Every access is secure. We saw the benefits of the solution right after the deployment.

The administrative features and SoD are valuable.

It would be nice if we could use queries. It is not possible to customize reports on Omada Identity. Everything is fixed. We can only use the standard options. It would be very nice if we could write queries using the SQL database.

I have been using the solution for 2.5 years.

The tool is stable.

The tool's scalability is fine.

My team contacts the support team. The support is slow.

Neutral

I worked with One Identity before. We could customize reporting using One Identity. Omada Identity and One Identity have their positives and negatives. Omada is a better tool. However, some features are not very good. The reporting takes more work on Omada.

The deployment is not easy. It takes too long. My colleagues always have issues after deployment.

My colleagues deployed the product in my organization.

The reporting is very poor. It is impossible to see which people are under what rules. Omada is set up to remove employees' access as soon as they leave our organization. It works very well.

I use Omada for role-based access control. We can create roles for the team or members of the organization. When they leave the organization, the role is removed automatically. It is beneficial to us.

Even though I use Omada, I still need the other systems we use. Omada helps automate reviews of access requests and reroutes them to the appropriate people. I use Omada Connectivity Community, but not much.

Overall, I rate the product a 7 out of 10.

I've been working on a big project for a public sector in Sweden. We permission the identities coming from the HR system to go to the active directory.

Omada has helped to reduce the number of help desk tickets and requests by a lot. 

Omada has made a huge difference because we have the security and we have the optimization of the identities. We get the rights and value. Every person could do it by themselves. The best thing when using an identity access management system is the optimization and base security that comes with it.

The Governance and self-service that can be set up so you can use them yourself to work in the system are the most valuable features. End users can be enabled to help themselves. 

The reports are also quite easy. There are out-of-the-box reports you can use. You can set up different classifications. For a governance solution, it includes everything you would want.

We do segregation of duties. We can set up different combinations of access that we want.

PowerShell is probably easier to use. In the other products I have used, you can just provide all the shell amounts. It's more tricky with Omada.

It's user-friendly but there's room for improvement. 

The security permission inside Omada also needs improvement. It's tricky to set up.

We started using Omada almost exactly two years ago. 

The stability is quite good. I haven't seen any problems with it. 

There are around 2,000 users. Omada requires three to four employees for maintenance. 

I have also used Micro Focus IDM. Micro Focus is easier to develop but a bit trickier for a customer to use. I think that if you have automatic systems, where you just want things to happen in the background, Micro Focus is great and one step ahead of Omada. But if you want to be part of the process and make access requests, Omada is really good there. The Governance and some of the access management are really good. But the automatization flow is easier in Micro Focus.

The initial setup was complex. We did it manually because I was a senior expert. Better to do it that way, because otherwise, it's hard to get it to work. It has a complex installation procedure. 

The first time I did it, it took around two weeks. But now I can do it in a couple of days.

My strategy was to follow the installation guidance. 

It's a matter of time before our customers see ROI from Omada.

My advice would be to have a lot of information about the different states of resources because it's quite easy to do something wrong. 

I would rate Omada an eight out of ten. For it to be a ten, there should be better documentation. I think that will come in a few years when the product is bigger and there is improved documentation and more forums where you can find codes. It can also be quite hard sometimes to set up a new system.

Our general use cases include: 

• User onboarding
• User out-boarding
• Role-based access control, e.g., whenever a person's role is changed from one to another, then all the related roles need to be changed.
• Role management 
• Asset management 
• Re-certification, audits that happen every quarter. Every quarter a manager has to certify all his subordinates' access, whether that expertise should be gained or not, or whether they'll be skipped.

The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology. It is ingrained with Microsoft and we implemented it ourselves for our clients wherein we can request software to install from Omada. That is something they have implemented and they are getting a lot of value out of. 

In terms of improvement, there are not so many out of the box connectors available in the current version. So what they have improved in the latest version is more out of the box connectors for integration, that is one improvement. 

Then there is the recertification process. When the recertification process is launched that makes Omada very slow. There are performance issues in the current version.

We have been working with Omada Identity Suite for around one year. 

There have been some performance issues during the re-certification process, so it works well whenever the re-certifications or audits are not launched but the re-certification makes it very slow. 

We haven't tried doing scaling it yet, so I don't know about that.

I personally have not contacted their support because I don't support our Omada current clientele but our clients have contacted Omada quite often when they required line support. They said the support was fine. 

Omada people came in on-premises and they helped with the installation, so it was a joint effort from the client and Omada. Our client takes care of the maintenance. They are enterprise size and use Omada on a daily basis. 

Licenses are only for installations and support problems. They are definitely additional costs.

I would recommend this solution if you are more Microsoft based technology. If not then I wouldn't recommend Omada, because it mainly works on Windows. It has been a market leader and Omada is growing, but it's not quite there with the current version. I would definitely recommend version 12.0 Omada.

In the next release, I would like to see more governance.

I would rate Omada a seven out of ten. The reason for that being is that it's good but it has got some limitations. Some performance improvements can be done.

My primary use cases of this solution are to manage the life cycle of identities, manage authorizations for applications, and the re-certification of authorizations.

The most valuable feature of this product is that it gives you a dashboard on which applications the user has access. It's also a user-friendly solution. 

I would like to see some additional functionality and improvements in usability.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years.

This solution's stability is fine, with no issues. Maintenance requires three to four people.

We had good support from the supplier for this product.

Before you start implementation, you should think about the impact the solution will have on the company. Also, if you have very old or obsolete data, you should remove it prior to implementation. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten.

Omada Identity Suite is an extremely flexible solution providing easy customisation of anything from process flows to role assignment rules and compliance reports. It’s handled almost exclusively through configuration, not development. Reacting on new requirements can be handled swiftly.

The whole IT side of offboarding/onboarding of employees/external consultants is centred on OIS. A tight integration between the HR system, OIS and AD ensures a high level of compliance while reducing manpower to a minimum.

The suite’s flexibility within the area of continuous violation detection and handling could be improved. I have not used the latest version, but I have been told that some work has been put into this area recently by Omada.

Eight years.

Generally, a very robust system running on Windows/MS SQL.

I have experience with rather large companies that have OIS handling thousands of identities and without worrying much about load balancing, server clusters, etc.

Above average.

I have worked with Sailpoint’s IIQ and I believe that on quite a high number of features (functional and nonfunctional), OIS is superior. I can only think of one area in which Sailpoint could claim to have reached a higher level of maturity: continuous recertification of accesses.

Considering the scope of the project, the setup was quite straightforward.

No knowledge of the pricing model.

No.

Despite the high level of flexibility in the SW, I recommend implementing the standard IAM processes/functionality that OIS offers and expand scope/customise from there.

I have this solution at two different sites and they are completely different setups.

The most valuable feature is the automatic provisioning and reconciliation of things like the Active Directory groups and memberships.

You can set up automated processes so that you don't need to have an AD administrator doing it all. You can automate processes and control who is allowed to do what. All of these features are quite good.

The way they do the connection to external systems for the provisioning and for the reconciliation is also very good.

The user interface should have a more flexible design, where you can change it to your requirement. It is not an agile design, so it doesn't reformat itself for small devices like tablets or mobile phones (i.e. fluid design). 

One year.

In a stable environment, it's reasonably stable.

You can kind of provoke it into being less stable. There is a thing called ROPE (Reconciliation and Policy Engine) that can sometimes be a bit tricky. Otherwise, it is mostly stable.

On my side, I consider it relatively easy to scale. I have been involved with customers that have worldwide organizations running with it. There are guidelines for scaling to that kind of size. Generally, scalability is ok.

Frankly, everybody in the company uses it because it is used to apply for permissions. Our internal administration team is between ten and twelve people, whereas there are a couple of thousand end-users.

I have had no problem with technical support. I have enrolled two similar people, with access to their partner website as well. In the partner's site, there is help available outside of the Omada family of products. 

I find the initial setup quite straightforward, however, I can imagine it being complex for some people. It can become very complex with the connections to external systems. I know of one customer here who has had very great problems with it, but another one found it a bit easier.

The main problem is going to be the amount of shoe-horning your own systems into it. That's the big problem; modeling so that everything fits.

We had an integrator working with our in-house team. You can't do it all on your own. You need an integrator, but there are good integrators and poor integrators.

I recommend using this solution and I would rate it a seven and a half out of ten.

Strict governance, ability to scrutinize, and make a granular view.

Governance around user access provisioning and user profiling.

UI and user-friendly adaptivity.

Less than one year.

Slow performance on reports.

OK, with complex questions from us.

Was complex, a lot of org implementation questions, master data issues, process workflows, too much compared to what we needed.

Choose wisely based on needs.

Work hard with your requirements and scope.