Ping Identity Platform Reviews

People use the solution to secure their applications and authenticate particular processes.

In access token management, we have to attach a certificate. In that column, I have to enable the search option to edit certificates. We can choose a drop-down to search for which certificate we have to create, which is difficult.

I have been using Ping Identity Platform for more than two and a half years.

Ping Identity Platform is a stable solution.

A lot of users from our company are using the solution globally.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution.

Recommending the solution to other users depends on their application. If fewer people use your application, you can set up the tool in a quality environment. You can also use Ping Identity Platform to secure your application by restricting access to a few people.

It is not easy for someone to learn to use the solution for the first time, but at the same time, it's not very difficult to learn.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My primary use case for PingID was multifactor authentication, then I used PingOne, which showed me the transaction, so the whole person authentication, including the errors. Based on the resulting errors, I checked the PingFederate connection mapped for the particular application and published information about the issue.

Through PingID, there was multifactor authentication. In particular, secondary authentication was enabled to secure the application and is supported in IOS, even for mobile devices.

During the PingID authentication, you need to swipe or give your fingerprint on your mobile and then get the SMS for authentication.

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. Sometimes, my company faces vulnerability issues, and PingID even helps through vulnerability patches.

The tool has excellent features.

I also like that PingID has clear documents that will help you integrate it with other solutions.

PingID classifies the type of environment into internal and external, with the internal environment for internal users and the external environment for external users. For example, the external users would be cabin crew members who log in using the mail ID through multifactor authentication. This is an area for improvement in PingID because you need to take additional steps so you can trust both internal and external users.

My company had to use the CIDR authentication selector as an additional step, through policy creation in the PingFederate website, with the help of trusted IP, where all people belong to a particular network, then my company needs to do some IP load balancing. My company had to configure the particular IP in the CIDR authentication selector, then only then can it classify users into internal or external.

An internal user doesn't need to do multifactor authentication, but an external user will be redirected to a request from the PingFederate console, and then, based on the user authentication method, through biometrics, the user will be authenticating from Active Directory. If the user is valid, authenticated, and the authorization is approved, the user will then be redirected to the application.

I have more than three years of experience with PingID. The last time I used PingID was six months ago. I'm now working on the PingFederate side.

Stability-wise, PingID is an eight out of ten for me. It's a very stable solution, but sometimes, failures occur that you can't control. For example, my company checked logs in Sumo Logic and had Dynatrace as a monitoring tool. If there's a failure in the software system, where everything is connected, for example, if PingFederate isn't working, Dynatrace will send a report to my company. If PingFederate or an agent isn't working, my company won't receive any logs, so it depends on the policy and infrastructure, but PingID stability is an eight for me.

The scalability of PingID purely depends on the server side and how you're going to configure it. In some cases, it would also depend on how you'll do performance tuning. How scalable PingID  is will differ from infrastructure to infrastructure. For example, I supported the easyjet.com environment which had more than ten thousand user bandwidth.

Support-wise, PingID is an eight out of ten because when my company faced a P1 incident or issue that company members couldn't resolve, my company created a P1 request. The PingID SME joined the call within thirty to forty minutes, which was the vendor's service agreement, but only for P1 issues.

For P2 issues, it takes around one hour and forty minutes; for P3 incidents, it could take eight hours; for P4, it usually takes ten hours but could reach up to twenty hours.

Positive

I used PingFederate with PingID because PingFederate can assign internal and external users and configure validation. Based on the improv setup, you can also use PingFederate for your internal environment. Still, in my company, I'm using PingFederate for the external environment, where servers run outside the company's environment.

I used CA SiteMinder in the past, which was an older tool, and I wanted to use the latest technology, so I switched to a newer tool, PingDirectory, which I installed. Now I can work on PingDirector in terms of schema rules, mapping, etc.

The initial setup for PingID is seven out of ten for me. I had to install PingFederate, have experience with PingDirectory and Apache Studio, and do everything myself, including the environment setup. I've successfully implemented the project.

PingID for mobile apps is okay, as you don't need to deploy PingID in any of the servers. Still, you need to create the connection, enabling PingFederate in a particular environment. PingFederate is not infallible, and it's the only inject site, so you inject, then run the property file, configure the admin port, cluster port, and the index number for the engine node. You need to denote how many engine nodes you must classify for the admin node on the property file, then run that file. Once the PingFederate console runs, automatic cancellation will occur, and the application will work.

The complete deployment of the PingID project didn't take more than five to six months, including the POC, development, and production.

I've implemented PingID, so it was an in-house implementation.

PingID saves you time between thirty to forty percent, so time is the ROI, at least to me.

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. It also has the main feature of MFA via finger swiping or SMS versus other MFA tools, where you need to wait for a few seconds to get the new code, even if you've been authenticated. The speed of transactions in PingID is also very fast because it only takes microseconds after swiping your finger. I like the tool very much.

I've evaluated other software, such as PingFederate, PingDirectory, PingAccess, and PingOne, apart from PingID.

I'm working in the identity access management domain, so I've used software such as PingFederate, PingDirectory, PingID, PingOne, and PingAccess.

PingID is deployed on the AWS service, so that's on a cloud environment.

I'm part of the engineering team, with three members working on the PingID project and five from the support team working on PingID. Within the environment I supported, twelve thousand people used PingID, particularly crew members who used the MFA feature of the solution.

The maximum number of users I've seen from PingID based on the environment I supported was up to twelve thousand.

My recommendation to anyone looking into implementing PingID is that before working with the tool or any other tool, you first need to understand it and get some basic knowledge about it. With basic knowledge, you can implement PingID. Consider why you'd implement the tool in your environment and for what purpose. How many people will benefit from using the tool? Before implementing, it would be best to compare PingID with other tools to see the features and benefits.

My rating for PingID is eight out of ten because it's a faster tool with multiple features. It also supports one of the adapters of PingFederate, the composite adapter, which allows you to enable MFA on an adapter-based setup.

My company is a PingID partner.

The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities. We can do a lot of configurations. It is a fairly good product for workforce identity management.

The product is not customizable. It is not suitable for consumer identity management.

I have been working with the product for two years.

Our clients are mainly government entities and big investment firms.

The technical support is not proactive. If an issue or concern is raised, the support person must jump on a call as soon as possible, but it is not happening now.

Neutral

We also recommend ForgeRock. It is used for access management. It doesn’t have many configurations but allows customizations. We can achieve a lot of things using customizations. Wherever PingID is not suitable for the customer, we ask them to choose ForgeRock so that we can customize it as per the requirements and deliver the solution.

The tool is very easy to set up.

The product is costly. Large organizations can afford it. However, it is not suitable for smaller companies. Smaller organizations can choose Okta or One Identity.

We recommend the product to our customers. Organizations can buy the product if they are ready to spend a lot of money. They must be aware that the support is average. However, the tool is very good. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

PingID is similar to identity access management and customer identity access management, however, the profile is different.

With PingID, we were able to integrate all of our devices easily. It provides ease of connection with all of our devices.

PingID is more secure than other products. We have a BYOD policy, and we have different devices that are used within our company like laptops and iPhones. 

PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration. Currently, we are doing manual configuration for a changeover. If some of the scripts could be automated, the integration would be faster, and we would reduce the manual effort.

I have been working with PingID for one year.

PingID is stable. With respect to stability, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The product only requires a small team to maintain it. We use both an offshore model and an onsite-to-offshore model to support them. We have a separate team used for migration and maintenance. In total, there are eight people with both teams put together.

The solution is scalable. It is pretty easy to expand. This is one of the reasons we chose to implement it in our organization. We wanted to connect many BYODs and expand to more devices.

We have 9,000 profiles that need to access PingID.

Previously, we used SiteMinder. We switched to PingID because our standards had changed with respect to information security. 

Also, PingID is seen as better performance-wise, and it meets the requirements for our application landscape. 

The initial setup of PingID is simple. We had to migrate the applications from the cloud and from on-premises, one application at a time, directly to Ping. We had to move to the Ping directory so that it can identify all the users. This all takes time to set up.

Overall, I would rate PingID a nine out of ten.

My primary use case is for mobile one-time passwords and identity solution. Multi-factor authentification.

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. 

Multi-factor authentification is the feature that is the most valuable because it allows me to securely connect to my enterprises or mobile device from anywhere.

They should promote more buyer's authentification, like a fingerprint or face recognition, something that's more convenient.

They could use some bio-certification. It's just more user-friendly and more convenient than entering the one time passes. That would be an improvement.

It is stable.

It is scalable because now there are several thousand users already using it in our company. We have around 5,000 users using this solution. 

We switched to Ping because it's more stable. It supports many platforms and devices for example, three devices are included in the license. In one instance I can use the laptop for example, mobile, and the iPad.

The initial setup was very easy. It took five minutes including downloading from the Google App store. You link it with your code and that's it.

I would advise focussing on one solution because we do not use other solutions. This solution has functionalities that are enough so I would recommend to focus on one, and not try to integrate other solutions because it increases cost.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as software for some of the applications.

The main reason why we use this product is to make sure that we can use our corporate account to log on to applications in the cloud. From that perspective, it helps us in our account life-cycle management. If somebody is leaving the company, for example, that account will be automatically deleted, which saves time.

The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering.

If the solution is going to compete with Microsoft, they need to offer more unique functionality to keep their current user base.

The administrative aspects of the solution could be more granular.

I've been using the solution since 2015.

The solution is stable. The main thing we had in the past was data center issues before we migrated to MES, but the product itself is very stable.

The scalability of the product could be improved, especially in terms of configuration. We have about 140,000 users on the solution. Everyone in the company is currently using it.

Technical support is good. There has been no negative feedback from my team.

We previously used a solution called Sidewinder. We switched because we felt this solution was technically better.

The solution's initial setup has a moderate level of difficulty. Coming from another solution, we had a bit of a challenge making applications compatible. Full deployment took one year as we had to migrate our many applications.

We managed the setup ourselves, with the assistance of a system integrator. They were very helpful and did a good job.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

I'd warn that a company integrating the solution should keep in mind that if they have a lot of applications, the implementation will get complex.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use PingID for multifactor authentication, passwordless login, and push notifications. 

I like the self-service feature. The 502 and UBP systems are also excellent. PingID's ability to authenticate with SSH, RDP, and Windows login is pretty handy. It covers the entire spectrum of use.

PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature. 

We have used PingID for five years.

Early on, there were many changes to PingID because the company was trying to address some security vulnerabilities, but we only faced outages twice in three years due to these updates.  It's fairly stable overall. 

PingID's scalability is good. We haven't had any issues, but we don't have a huge amount of traffic. My organization has around 150,000 users. 

We've had issues with incorrect reporting and needed to contact support. Reports were missing values, or the details weren't clear. We had a quick resolution 80 percent of the time. 

Positive

I rate PingID seven out of 10 for ease of setup. It takes less than a day to deploy in one environment. It's a cloud-based solution, so you only need to set up an account and link it to your on-prem environment using an adapter. 

I rate PingID eight out of 10. I would recommend it depending on the use case. You need to clarify your requirements before implementing the solution. 

We primarily use the solution for access to cloud applications.

The support for multi-factor authentication from different sources is the solution's most valuable feature.

The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT.

The solution needs to offer stronger support for the password-less authentication.

I've been using the solution for less than a year.

The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches.

The scalability is good. It's been able to provide us with enough scalability for our needs. We have about 100 users on the solution currently. 

We've been in touch with technical support and have been satisfied with their services so far.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Our team handled the deployment internally.

We pay a licensing fee to Ping on a yearly basis. We don't have to pay an extra fee for technical support.

Before choosing Ping, we evaluated Okta.

We use a hybrid deployment model and are using the latest version of Ping.

It's being used quite extensively in our organization, although I'm unsure as to if we have plans to increase usage.

If someone is looking for a solution that works both for on-prem or hybrid, I strongly recommend opting for the cloud. It's a simple implementation and the solution is quite interesting. There are a lot of integrations. The on-prem is not very easy to implement in comparison to the cloud but it's very good, and, for organizations with on-premise requirements, it's bound to be one of the top choices.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.