One Identity Manager Reviews

As consultants, we use it for provisioning, for access management in SAP, for AD access management. In the future, we may use it for many other applications like SafePoint and Office 365.

It improves organizations because role requests are automated, as are provisioning and deprovisioning; all of that is automated. 

It saves time and improves productivity because otherwise, people would be calling the helpdesk. Productivity is improved because everything is automated. A user makes a request and a workflow is triggered. It sends mails to your manager or to the product owners for approval. If everything is working properly, productivity increases.

Even without any customization, if you install it, configure it, it's ready. We may do some small customizations afterward, but the product is really good as is. It's very powerful. Without any customization, it starts working.

There is also a new feature, the Sync Engine, which is very good. Before, without it, the initial onboarding of HR systems was very difficult.

The policy and role management features are good, but not well-implemented in many companies because it's not that easy. It takes time. We are starting to use attestation in our current project and to follow the company policies. It takes time, but the feature is good. The company policies feature is really good because in workflows you can check whether the policies are all working. It's a good feature, but I don't think it is very common in many companies.

In terms of privileged account governance, in all of our previous projects we created privileged accounts and, again, with the new projects, we are going to start managing privileged accounts through One Identity. This feature is good. The new features are really good.

Finally, the product is flexible. We can easily customize almost any part of the system, such as having logic code inside the templates, inside the tables. And we can create processes as well. The customization makes it really flexible.

One Identity has a self-service portal but many customers need a helpdesk where they can go in and request. To make that happen we need to do a lot of customization. Maybe that could be improved, but it can be implemented.

The current version we have is stable but there are bugs, of course. There are many bugs. Many customers may wait for somebody else to move their systems and after they get the feedback, only then will they move. Each time there is a new release, it takes time to become stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support depends on the level. Level-one is not as knowledgeable as level-two. But, overall, their level of knowledge is good.

For me, the setup is easy, because I have a background in Microsoft technologies. That makes it really easy.

We are currently working on integrating it with SAP, but we are customizing a lot of things to fit with the current company's requirements. Their requirements are quite different from the out-of-the-box settings. Next month is the first SAP system go-live.

After the SAP onboarding, we will look at the cloud. I have fixed some bugs in the code for the Office 365 onboarding earlier. That was a very early version with custom connectors to Office 365, version 6. But in terms of a cloud connector, we have not started to work on it yet, in the latest versions.

• The GUI is very impressive and clean (even cleaner and minimalistic in v7).
• JobQueueInfo does an amazing job tracking all processes.
• Synchronizations are easy to set up.
• Reporting capabilities are fantastic once you get the hang of using Report Editor.
• WebDesigner allows a lot of customizations to be added to the web project.
• Schema and table names are very logical. It is very easy to find something in the database just because of the fact that the naming convention in the schema is very logical and consistent.
• It's a feature-rich product: a suite of very powerful tools with a lot of functionalities once you get the knack of them.

• Auditing becomes easier from an admin perspective.
• There is more control over everything.
• Processes are much better defined.
• People tend to take some functional roles much more seriously. There were some roles that were very old in the organization but the legacy implementations did not grant much value to them. Q1IM's implementation of those roles really enhanced the value and the role members had clear responsibilities/tasks defined that they had to abide by.

• DBQueue processes can bottleneck the system at times. In v7, its apparently re-architectured, and is better. There can be too many of them and they process very slowly, causing actual processes to take a lot more time to complete.
• There should be a way to define fail-over job servers in process steps. Job servers can become a single point of failure.
• Better support for Oracle back end databases. SQL support is good and KBs are easy to find. The same level of support should be available for Oracle if the product claims to support it.
• A better migration tool for v6 to v7 upgrade, especially for the Oracle back end.
• There should be a way to separate out the front end (IT Shop) from the back-end processes. If the submission of a request through the web portal is done and it gets stuck computing something in the back end, the front end control should still be granted back so that the user can continue navigating freely across the site. Currently, if a request is submitted and it is taking time to process, the front end just gets stuck on a spinning wheel (loading wheel).

I have used it for ~2 years.

If the requirements can be met through product configuration, then issues don't arise as often. Customizations (depending on complexity) can be problematic at times.

Transporting change labels across environments can be confusing. It should be noted that the content contained in change labels should be documented right from the beginning of the project and all team members should be on the same page.

It's more about getting used to the correct way of working with the product rather than issues with deployment.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

We implemented the tool in an environment with roughly 35,000 active employees and over 2,000 service accounts. A few things I noted were:

• The web portal (IT Shop) tends to get a bit slow loading information for certain roles that have access to lookup all employees.
• The admin tools can also get a bit slow while loading too much information at once. For example: Loading user account information under the Active Directory tab in Manager can take a long time.
• We had various rules defined in our scripts for central account generation. One of those included a check in a history table to avoid granting a user name which has already been used in the past thus avoiding collisions. This caused our contractor account requests through the web portal to become extremely slow. Submitting a user account request from the IT Shop could take up to four minutes at times. We had all necessary columns indexed and the code to generate CentralAccount was written by the vendor team itself but the slowness could not be tackled.
• There was always a direct relation between the slowness we faced and the number of employees the environment managed. For example: Account requests used to take roughly 20 seconds in our development environment which had roughly 15k users and almost 25k entries in the history table we maintained to avoid username collision. In our production environment, it took way longer since the number of employees increased to ~35k and entries in our history table exceeded 150k records.

Customer service was just average during implementation phase.

Technical support is decent overall. However, some SRs took way too much time to resolve for the value they provided.

Some escalation engineers are very knowledgeable and troubleshooting sessions with them can be really worthwhile and informative.

We previously used legacy scripts with Microsoft FIM as the backend. FIM was too old and not user friendly at all. It was ancient in terms of IDAM and there were far better products with a lot more capabilities.

Setup was straightforward. Initial JobService configurations ends up being a bit confusing.

It was a hybrid implementation: We had an in-house team and a vendor team during the time of development for the first phase of the project. The second phase was done purely in-house.

The vendor team was not good. It was just average. There were a lot of times when we felt communication was lacking from the vendor side and at times, there were mistakes in the implementation, also. We recognized some errors long after the product had gone live. Overall quality delivered during development was not up to the mark. Average experience during the first phase with the vendor caused us to stick to a complete in-house implementation for the second phase.

Vendor teams (at least in the US) should be trained more about the tool's capabilities. I have heard that European vendor teams are much better with a lot more knowledge about the product.

Before choosing this solution we also evaluated TIM, OpenIAM, OIM, and SailPoint. All had week-long PoCs with us. We chose Q1IM (at the time, D1IM). SailPoint was a close second.

It is certainly a leading product in the IAM sphere.

Our primary use case was to onboard certain applications for a customer.

One Identity Manager helps minimize gaps in governance coverage among various servers. If you are trying to do an access review, or want to grant access to someone, these generally require a review process. Those kinds of reviews are done manually if there are no governance tools. This tool makes that process smoother. It sends automatic reminders and will automatically discard a request if someone does not approve it. We can even configure it so that if someone has not approved it five times, it can be auto-approved. It streamlines the whole governance process and reduces a lot of manual activity with automation.

It also helps streamline application governance when it comes to application access decisions, application compliance, and application auditing. Previously, these processes required a lot of manual work, but that work has now been discarded.

Another benefit is that One Identity Manager definitely helps application owners make application governance decisions without IT. It sends regular notifications and anyone can see what is pending on their plate. They can take action on what should be a part of their application and what should not be a part of their application, and make informed decisions.

An outstanding feature of One Identity Manager, compared to SailPoint, is the dashboard where they present everything. With the dashboard, the customer can see how the integrations have happened. It is more presentable than what we have with SailPoint. The user experience is good because everything is exposed on the dashboard. They can tweak it a little bit if they want.

Also, using its business roles to map company structures is fairly easy and good, similar to SailPoint. It is handy. This function is very important because today, most organizations rely on RBAC, role-based access control. If a tool offers identity management capabilities, it must also offer role-based access control. Both One Identity Manager and SailPoint offer good role-based access controls. It's easy to configure and use.

I have used One Identity Manager for S/4HANA from SAP, and that was a very complex integration. S/4HANA has a very complex permission structure, and you cannot find the segregation of duty. That means you cannot do policy violations and policy checks. One Identity Manager does not provide a very flexible way to do segregation of duty based on the permission structure of S/4HANA. Doing so is beautiful in SailPoint, which has a more robust way of doing it.

Also, integration with various applications should be made smoother. It is very difficult right now for regular implementers.

Access reviews are another thing that is not that good in the solution. It needs improvement.

Entitlement management is another area where I have struggled a lot, wherein you try to manage the access of users to various applications. It is not that smooth in the solution.

These last three items need to be improved on a very urgent basis.

I used One Identity Manager for about six months.

On a scale of one to 10, where 10 is the best, if I look at the stability equally across all features, One Identity Manager is an eight and SailPoint is a nine.

The solution is very scalable.

I have not interacted with their support.

Onboarding certain applications for a customer was something that gave us difficulty with SailPoint. And the primary driver for switching was cost. SailPoint was very costly and One Identity Manager was a little bit cheaper.

The user experience is good, but the implementer's experience is not that great. As an administrator, when I'm trying to implement a solution, it is a hectic job.

The time it takes to implement depends on the requirements. If you want, for example, to integrate Active Directory, it will take two to four hours because it is an out-of-the-box application and very common. When it comes to complex applications like SAP, HRM, or ERP solutions, they have complex infrastructures. Integrating such applications takes no less than five to six working days.

The number of people involved is based on how big the project is. If it involves implementing 100 applications, you definitely need a team of 15 to 20 people to complete it within one year. But if you only have to onboard five applications with One Identity Manager from scratch, where you have to install the product, it will take six to seven months. With SailPoint, it takes a little bit less time.

We used the help of One Identity partners because we don't have expertise in One Identity Manager. We are SailPoint experts. They were involved in architecting the whole solution from the beginning as well as in customizing it.

The partners struggled a bit because some of the features are not that flexible in One Identity Manager. The product has all the capabilities required, but it is not that implementer-friendly.

In terms of the training that the partners provided to our customers, I was not present, but the feedback from the customers was that it was okay. They understood things.

Overall, the value provided by One Identity Partners was a seven out of 10.

The price of One Identity Manager is cheaper than SailPoint. When we initially suggested SailPoint to some customers they were surprised at the price, so we then suggested One Identity Manager and they went with that.

In addition to the licensing fees, there are costs for customization if you want to build custom modules.

In addition to SailPoint, I have worked with ForgeRock, Microsoft FIM a long way back, and others.

SailPoint has a lot of advantages as compared to One Identity Manager. First, the installation time is very short, and the process is very smooth. Second, it is an implementer's tool, meaning an implementer enjoys developing applications with SailPoint. SailPoint may not be that user-friendly, but it is very implementer-friendly. Implementation is easier with it. And because it is implementer-friendly, implementers can add value to the product, meaning its capabilities can be enhanced based on customer requirements, which is something that is lacking with One Identity Manager. And compared to SailPoint, One Identity Manager has fewer features.

Most of my customers in the region where I work, The Middle East, prefer on-prem solutions. They don't like the cloud. SailPoint and One Identity Manager both have on-prem solutions, so I am focusing my comparison on them.

I have also worked on cloud-based solutions but they have their challenges.

For enterprise-level administration and governance of users, data, and privileged accounts, One Identity Manager is average. Its privileged account management is lacking in capabilities. You have to integrate it with various other PAM tools and only then can it be used for that.

One problem with almost all identity managers today is that the implementation is based on certain information. After that, if certain big changes happen in the organization, you have to reflect all of those changes in the identity management solutions by doing certain customizations or implementation activities. That takes a good amount of time. That complexity is present in almost all identity managers today. It is not very quick when it comes to making changes.

Regarding Zero Trust, that is a buzzword as well as a big word. One Identity Manager alone cannot achieve an identity-centric Zero Trust model. It has to start at the network level through the identity management level, and we have to integrate it with multiple different solutions. We have not achieved Zero Trust for any organization yet.

One Identity Manager is mostly suitable for identity governance capabilities but is not that suitable for access management or privileged account management. If you are evaluating this product for access management or privileged access management, you should not go with it. If you want a governance product, go ahead and use this one.

The primary use case for this solution is implementing them at the customer site, according to the customer's business needs. E.g., certain customers needs an attestation case. 

The reason for implementing this solution is the need to become somewhat more in control. There is also the ease of use for connecting products to target systems, like an Active Directory or Exchange.

I had an organization which had no idea of their user accounts and who owned them. It took me two weeks, and out of those two weeks, most of the time was spent waiting for the user accounts to connect to the Active Directory. Within two weeks, we knew exactly how many orphaned accounts that they had. This was a huge deal for the customer. They never realized that within such a short time frame that they could be able to better view their Active Directory, who owned which account, and how they could start cleaning it up. This is a very basic feature within the product, but to the customer, it is a huge leap.

The policy and role management features are superb. If you have a customer who is willing to go somewhere with role management, then the possibilities are endless with the product. It is well-structured, and the architecture is well-defined. I am quite content with it.

The solution is flexible. It is based on modules. Depending on the customer's needs, you can implement the different modules, which are accompanied with it. 

I would like better integration with cloud apps, but I just learned this week that there is already a pretty advanced cloud integration. So, what I would like to see is already implemented, but I just need to start using it.

When I first started using it, way before version 7, the manual wasn't comprehensive.

The UX design needs improvement, but I have noticed that people are working very hard behind the curtains to make sure that UX is designed in such a way that the end user is going to have a much easier time using the product in future releases. My ideal was a product designed by IT guys with an IT guy mindset, not without realizing thousands of people in an IT portal would be using the product. Therefore, it took my customers many hours to find the correct links to order something from the IT shop, but I know One Identity is working very hard to improve this as well. If they could improve the UX within the Manager tool, this would be another huge upgrade in just lowering the learning curve of how to use the product.

If well-implemented, the solution is extremely stable. What I have been confronted with is I am usually joining an ongoing project, which has been implemented quite messily: 

• The basic features of the product usually aren't used. 
• Customization is too spread out, and in a very inefficient way, making the product very unstable. 

It should be implement with the out-of-the-box features. When used with its features, it is extremely stable.

With the technical support, I create a case, then within a few hours I receive a reply. So, I'm very pleased with the technical support. However, some features aren't supported. It is based on your own risk, which I can accept, but I would be happier if they would provide me some additional information about them anyway, e.g., deleting tables or columns. 

You need a bit more knowledge than with the One Identity Manager product. You also need to be knowledgeable about servers and IIS servers for the web server. However, if you just follow the manual, you will get very far. Sometimes, you just need to Google somethings.

The SAP integration is extremely easy. The first time that I used it, I picked up the user manual, and typed in some user account system clients and passwords, then I was connected. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Once you are past the learning curve of the product, the most valuable feature is the ease in which you can implement the product.

It has helped to reduce customer costs.

For the customers that I have worked with, this solution has helped increase employee productivity when it comes to provisioning users. For example, if someone joins the company, then someone else will need to realize a member has joined the company. They need to create a ticket or call someone they know within the Active Directory team. This usually takes at least three to four weeks before they are able to make someone work efficiently. With One Identity Manager, within a few months, you can reduce four weeks time to a few days or even hours.

It needs flexibility in the licensing or packaging, because you buy the entire package at once, and sometimes the customers are a bit overwhelmed with whatever they get. I would like if they could cut the licensing or packaging into somewhat smaller things.

It isn't that hard of a product to use. It's actually very easy to set up. Your business case is much easier than you think, forget the word complex. Just use the product as it is meant to be used, and it will make your life easier. It will also make your customers much happier,  reducing the time to implement something or making the company grow. 

I have done some basic SAP integrations just using the out-of-the-box connectors. After connecting it, the customers with their own technical teams go in and clean up SAP.

The customers that I am working with haven't moved to the cloud yet or are just starting move to the cloud. I am pleased to see many steps are being taken to make cloud integration much easier from version 8 and up.

I am interested in finding more out about the privileged account governance features.

We obtained tickets for user access roles to grant appropriate access to specific target systems. To process these tickets, we need to determine the user queue number, search for the corresponding user in One Identity Manager, and verify their target roles. The process includes understanding how to resolve each ticket.

One Identity Manager provides a single platform for enterprise level administration and the governance of users.

Immediately after deployment, we can reap the benefits of One Identity Manager. Based on my previous experience resolving similar tickets, I am confident that users will receive the desired access to roles upon completing the necessary configurations within the manager and observing the job queue.

One Identity Manager's user interface can be confusing due to its multiple UIs. Having worked with ForgeRock Identity Access Management, which has only two UIs for access and identity management, I believe One Identity's interface is significantly more complex and challenging to navigate compared to ForgeRock or other similar tools.

I have been using One Identity Manager for almost eight months.

It lags. Due to configuration issues, the system requires eight to ten GB of RAM, ideally 16 GB, to function properly with One Identity. If the system has eight GB of RAM or less, the tool will experience lag during use, regardless of the task being performed.

I previously used ForgeRock Identity Access Management but have been asked to switch to One Identity Manager for a new project.

Deploying One Identity Manager proved challenging due to the extended time required to install all necessary tools and subsequently gain access. While deployment would be significantly easier with the documentation, the process is lengthy regardless of the system. Additionally, any system hosting the tool must have a minimum configuration of 16 gigabytes of RAM. It takes one day to fully deploy One Identity Manager.

I would rate One Identity Manager six out of ten because of the complicated UI and system configuration lagging issues.

One Identity Manager requires no maintenance; once deployed, it can be used for any required purpose and then closed. However, if deployed on a virtual machine or VMware environment, it must be accessed every one or two years to prevent deletion due to machine expiration.

I implement One Identity for multiple use cases, including identity management, access assignment, and workflow automation. I also use it to migrate workloads from the admins to the business owners of the resources that are available in the IT shop.

One Identity increases security and decreases the provisioning time. Provisioning can be completed in a few minutes instead of days. That's a huge difference. It improves governance because you can deal with a problem account much quicker. You can fine-tune the roles to an employee's position in the company. You can give them the exact permissions they need and nothing more.  

It delivers a simple solution for assigning the correct permissions to the right person. One Identity helps us develop an identity-centric zero-trust model. The solution gives us one centralized entity for all the accounts in the connected systems, such as Active Directory accounts, email accounts, application accounts, SAP application accounts, etc. 

One Identity is simple to implement. About 90 percent of the implementation is configuration rather than scripting and creating the connectors. It's quite easy to customize the solution. 

There are too many different user interfaces. For example, one is the designer and another is the manager. There's also a web interface and an object browser. It would be helpful to consolidate all of those into a single administrator portal. 

I have used One Identity Manager for 10.

One Identity is a stable product.

One Identity is scalable. We deploy the solution for businesses of all sizes.

I rate One Identity support nine out of 10. Most of our customers use One Identity's premier support. The main advantage is that they offer 24/7 service, so you can call them on Sunday evening if you need help. 

I previously used SailPoint and OpenText.

Deploying One Identity is straightforward and only takes a couple of days. After installation, you have to onboard the servers, databases, Windows operating systems, etc. The number of people needed during the deployment varies, depending on the size of the project. It is typically deployed at two or three locations. 

One Identity requires some daily maintenance to ensure that everything is working fine. We need to review the logs and extend the functionality for the customer. Sometimes, the client needs to make changes like connecting a new hub system connected, adding applications, changing the workflow, etc. 

One Identity's pricing is similar to that of other products. It might be a little more expensive, but you save time and implementation costs. It's cheaper to implement One Identity compared to Sailpoint and other solutions.

I rate One Identity Manager 10 out of 10. I recommend doing a proof of concept before implementing the solution.

We use it to manage the roles that everybody receives for our network. We use it to create an overarching business role and then we have individual, direct assignments to provide extra permissions where needed.

It definitely makes the overall structure extremely organized. It doesn't help to minimize gaps in governance, but it definitely helps the administrator see exactly where the gaps are so that issues can be resolved.

It also helps streamline aspects of application governance including application access decisions and application auditing. In terms of auditing, for every application we use, we undergo an audit, mainly for the number of roles we are allowed to give out and the access that everybody is allowed to have. With One Identity, we are easily able to pull up the individual roles and it tells us exactly who has a given role.

One of the valuable features is that it is relatively organized. I definitely appreciate that aspect. It is also relatively simple to use with a very easy flow to the GUI. The user interface is really top-notch. Whatever we need to do with it, we are able to see just how to do it right away.

Customization is also fairly easy. There really isn't a whole lot to it.

And one of the main things that we use it for is the creation and modification of business roles. That way, we can assign just one role to a user and they have all the permissions that they would need. We also use the solution to extend the governance to cloud apps. For users who need to work with the cloud on a daily basis, it makes assigning their privileges a lot easier.

There is a small area inside the administrator's GUI that could be a little bit more organized.

I have used One Identity Manager for about three years.

It seems pretty stable. I haven't seen it go down.

The scalability seems to be on par with what we need. We're able to add and remove exactly as needed.

The other solution that I used was Active Directory.

I was not involved in the deployment. But in terms of maintenance on our side, it is just the typical configuration of business roles and direct assignments.

One of the variables it really depends on is the replication time that is set for it to replicate and pull all of the new changes that have been made from the user GUIs. But I work with a relatively large network, so our replication time is different from that of an average company or user.

I have a very positive opinion of One Identity Manager. In all honesty, it's the best application that I've used. I give it my 100 percent recommendation.

Our company hosts our on-premises application with this solution. It is not a complete SaaS product but rather a hosted environment in their tenancy. 

We have an internal team of four administrators and site developers who manage the solution and provide support to 2,000 employees. Our operational model includes contracting with professional services for new development, managing releases, and deployment. 

The solution is a typical, conventional IGA but the tool itself offers many options for customization. Some other products are easier to implement but don't have the same customization capabilities. 

The product must include SaaS in the future. 

The use of the administrative tools is cumbersome because too many are required for configurations. For example, the solution requires master usage of eight different client tools so it is excessive to manage the product. A small fix or deployment requires opening three or four different client tools that are not intuitive or easy to use.

The user experience and interface need additional improvements. Version 8.2 included improvements to the GUI and the inclusion of Angular JS which is better. However, the interface for 8.5 is a bit basic. 

Mastery of VB.NET is required to develop using the solution. Most developers use Java or .Net and VB.NET kills the vibe. We have to use VB.NET internally when working within the solution and that really needs to be modernized. To be honest, no developer is interested in learning VB.NET because it is a substandard language compared to newer options. 

I have been using the solution for six years. 

The solution is very stable and we rate it a twelve out of ten. However, reaching that stability is torture. 

We had issues and bugs because of customization requirements and it took us a year to go live. Too many custom processes cause issues even though the end result is stable. Gathering things to implement and install takes time. In our case, the implementation document for us to go live was 500 pages and that was a bit terrifying. 

The solution is scalable and the database is the key element in integrations. Everything connects to the central database which is a benefit because then the database becomes the central configuration management tool. If you upload DLL code to the database, it pushes it to other components. It is a well-designed central configuration approach. 

This approach can be a bit of a drain on performance because everything is connected to the central database. It is important to keep on top of database health with the solution.

Support needs to be better because this is a framework-style product and your own developer needs to be able to work efficiently with theirs. Sometimes a problem is in the development code, not the core product functionality. It takes too much time, as operational support to investigate and find the root cause. The solution offers amazing functionality for the framework, but if you didn't write the code yourself you are in trouble. 

For example, if a third party writes code and then their involvement ends, an issue in production that needs support won't get it because the third party's code error is an unsupported area. 

If your company's active management processes are not aligned with ISO or NIST standards, a lot of customization is required and this is the best solution. For ITSM, this is also the solution to use. 

If your processes are aligned then other solutions are appropriate. For a product like SalesPoint, the solution might be ServiceNow. 

The initial setup is very complex and I rate it a four out of ten. 

Deployment depends on the project scope. If the project is smaller, you can connect with Active Directory and auto RMS on the same day. However, if you want joiners, movers, or leaders to go live, it becomes more complex. 

The pricing is good and I think more money is made out of selling professional services than the product itself. 

Developers who have worked with the product won't need the assistance of professional services. It is easy to implement once you are accustomed to the product. 

Someone new to the product would need 20-30 days of services a year and in that scenario, it is expensive to develop and maintain. 

I rate this solution a six out of ten.