Symantec Siteminder Reviews

The most valuable feature is that it allows a user the ability use the same credentials for different secured parts of a website. From a user-experience perspective, that's important because you don't want to have to remember or write down several sets of credentials. When a user comes into our website, they just want to go about their business, not spend half and hour trying to figure out how to log in.

SSO has been able to bring together many different pieces for authentications -- directories, databases, networks, etc. It's able to, for example, authenticate against ten different directories to give people just one set of credentials.

It seems that when there's a new version, patch, or service pack, we find bugs. There have been times where we've had to revert versions because of bugs. It has gotten better, however, and we used to have a lot more issues. There is still a lot of room for improvement in this area.

We've had no issues with deployment.

The stability issues we've experienced have some with new versions, patches, and service packs.

We have it built way above what we need. We have more servers than we need so that we're not impacted if one goes down. We've built in redundancies as well so that there's no single point of failure. We have a highly available system.

Technical support has gotten a lot better. We have a pretty complex environment and we used to have to explain it every time we opened a support ticket. Now the support engineers know our environment.

I'm actually impressed with technical support now because we have many different pieces to our SSO environment with lots of custom modules. They have their resources and can get back to us with answers.

It was initially complex because we had many directories. Upgrades, however, are simple. But there's no way to downgrade. You have to uninstall and reinstall the previous version.

My advice would be to set up several environments, including a sandbox where you can test upgrades and products without impacting users. Then have a dev environment for some users to test.

It provides single sign on for our company’s intranet. With that, when you log in, you don't need to enter your name and a password. It provides simple, secure access to company's intranet sites.

It was not stable when I got there. The more recent versions have been stable.

They have some strong performers, and then there are some other guys that we get and find that we need to ask for the case to be reassigned. My staff is pretty highly experienced, so they really need to work with the stronger support staff.

If someone came to me for advice, I would ask them specific questions about exactly what they need to secure on the internet, and how much of it they need because I think that one drawback to this product is that it's too big. It's too much of a beast. A lot of times, small to mid-sized companies really just need smaller bits and pieces that are available from other vendors, rather than tackling this whole beast. One thing that other vendors might do better is doing more with less with less cumbersome installation.

The most important criteria when choosing a vendor is the product's stability, so we consider overall impressions of the product’s standing in the market. Does it have good reputation for being stable? Is their company, overall, stable? We also look for ease of use of the product.

For us, it’s the best-of-breed pick on the market today. More importantly it’s the least complex enterprise solution that we can manage. It integrates well with multiple applications in multiple environments. That’s a big deal for us.

It makes it easier to find all the policies we have in place and run. Less work for me!

One big problem we have is keeping track of the various patches and bug-fix releases. They come out for different platforms (Windows, Linux, etc.) and it’s complex. It’s tough to keep up with all the releases and bugs that get fixed.

It’s complex compared with similar products out there.

It’s stable and mature, but we’ve had challenges as we grow. We see glitches here and there, and a little bit of latency in performance.

We have challenges, performance issues for which we’re unable to find the root cause as we scale. But we’re working with CA on this.

It’s excellent. We’re able to get enough attention for fixes. Sometimes the cycles are long, but it’s still good considering what we need.

The initial setup was not straightforward. It definitely has its learning curve.

It loses points because of the performance issues when we scale, which has to do with the complexity of our environment. If it’s out-of-the-box, maybe others don’t have this issue, but we do because we’re large.

It provides us with authentications, authorizations, and basically providing the client with better secure services.

We can differentiate between the good logins with a genuine user and unauthorized ones.

It’s easy, versatile, and functionality-wise, it’s very user-friendly as well.

With SSO, we’ve been able to better serve our clients, and wherever these authentications are required we can effectively manage the authentications. The bottom line is that if the clients are happy with the SSO solutions we’re providing, we’re doing a great job and the product has been helpful.

I would say advanced authentication, but they have another product for that. SSO could be merged with automatic authentication, so if I want to use those services I could depending on our requirements, rather than having two different products installed.

Like every other product there are things that need improvement, but it has been pretty stable. From a job perspective, it does what it is designated to do. Sometimes there are issues with non-sequential navigation, but when there’s an issue we get a fix for it. There are no issues with the core functions.

We are applying the solution to a lot of the platforms we are planning for, and we’re pretty confident and positive that it will be the best solution for us.

It’s good. Sometimes you have to wait for the right resources to come up and follow the escalation chain, but they’ve always been very responsible. I would like to get answers right away in most of the cases, not being sent offshore to have some analysis done. But I’ve seen that improvement in the past year – the customer service has improved.

It was already in production when I joined.

We installed one version and there is a bug in it; from a customer perspective I would want that particular issue to be fixed rather than getting an answer that the bug will be fixed in the next version.

It doesn’t mean we’re not trying to address it from our side, but with clients on it, it does take time and we’ve got to keep in mind all of the consequences. If they could have those exact solutions for a particular issue that would be great.

You should understand their requirements before they select a solution. Then you need to verify that you have the correct infrastructure, resources, and that your applications are compatible with the SiteMinder solution.

Primary case is to authenticate users and use banking online. It is performing well.

It has definitely made things easier. We do not have to do that development. It is an out-of-the-box product which does the thing it does best.

It has the ability to authenticate and authorize users. It is the main feature for our security.

Better monitoring. A better way to debug a problem. When there is a problem with it, it should log enough information for CA to know what is the problem, like a better debugging tool. 

It needs better debugging and support.

We have had some issues with it, but in general, it is good.

CA was there to help. There is some issues in general.

It is very scalable. We have a very large customer base: 75 million customers. We have about 40 million log in a day. So, the scalability is very good.

We are not very happy with the support, I am sorry to say.

The reason is mostly because we stayed on an older version and we are behind catching up on a newer version. It has become harder for CA to give us good support. 

The main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur. That is the biggest thing.

It has been an issue. All the problems that we reported actually have never been resolved. We could not capture enough information for CA to be able to debug the problem. This problem does not happen often. But, when it happens, we do not know why, because we are not able to capture the data. I think that is the biggest drawback. The support and its combination between ability for them to support us on all the older versions and different infrastructure to what CA recommends us to do. We are trying to upgrade and all that. Maybe these things will help.

Technical support is always available and very responsive. I have a direct line to the engineers. They allow me to talk to them directly. They really are trying to help the best they can. It does not work out well. In terms of interaction, no problems there.

When I started two years, it was already setup. Now, I am reengineering it. I am doing a different setup to eliminate any customization for CA to support us better. The process is straightforward.

I would recommend this solution. I would recommend the newer version without any customization. That is where we have had a problem because we did our own customization of this product.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: It is the supportability right. J.P. Morgan costs more, but we want stability, resiliency, and we want the product to work. However, it has to be scalable and supportable. That is the main thing for any product which we pick.

We use this solution for applications and portals for a bank in Colombia.

The solution has saved our company from a lot of problems.

The solution is easy to use for our managers.

We did not have any issues with the stability of this solution. We have approximately 5,000 clients using the solution.

The solution has been scalable.

The technical support could be better.

The licensing is fair for this solution.

I rate Symantec Siteminder an eight out of ten.

The security and single sign-on (SSO) features are the most valuable.

It's one login. You log in once and you can access all of the applications that have been integrated into SSO. That's the main advantage that we have seen in the organization.

I would like to see more usability; more customer usability.

Stability is good. The security by CA is good. It's a great company. In England, CA is very good.

Scalability is also good.

We always use technical support when using these solutions. It's okay, with response time, for example. If you have any issues, you open a ticket to support and there are some very good support technicians. I know most of them. However, I do know quite a few of them that are not that knowledgeable. That's where the frustration comes in, when you really need an answer. When the ticket is assigned to that tech, you cannot be switched and start over. That's the only thing I faced. Other than that, if it goes to the right tech that knows the product, boom!

With the initial setup, there was some complexity and some straightforward things.

Cost is the most important criteria when selecting a vendor.

The solution is used for single sign-on (SSO) authentication.

Symantec Siteminder has simplified user access for our customers from user login to their web applications.

The support team could work on their response time and overall competence.

I have been using Symantec Siteminder for ten years.

I would recommend the solution to both smaller and larger companies.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's pricing is competitive.

I would recommend the solution to other users. The solution is easy to use, and our company helps customers implement the product. The solution's centralized policy management provides a simple GUI for the users or administrators to use. We have the right skill set to do third-party integrations very easily.

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