We performed a comparison between Microsoft Identity Manager and Oracle Identity Governance based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Identity Management (IM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The support for the validity of the resources is valuable. The tool allows resource assignments within a validity period so that the managers do not have to remember to revoke the access once the work is done."
"It has a very user-friendly interface compared to what we are used to, and it is highly configurable. In the old solution, when we needed to do something, we had to have a programmer sitting next to us, whereas, in Omada Identity, everything is configurable."
"The customer success and support teams have been crucial."
"Support-wise, working with Omada has been good. We have very good direct interactions and fast responses."
"The thing that I find most valuable is that Omada consists of building blocks, which means that you can configure almost anything you want without using custom code, making it pretty easy to do. It's possible to connect to multiple target systems and to create one role that consists of different permissions in the different target systems. So one role in Omada can make sure that you have an account in three different systems."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"It scales in terms of numbers and types of identities. It can govern the on-premise applications as well as the cloud applications. So, it can manage hybrid environments with all types of identities and various load amounts."
"MIM's most valuable feature is its connectivity with Exchange."
"The features that we find most valuable are security, mobility, and Single Sign-On."
"I appreciate how Microsoft keeps adding new features to Microsoft Identity Manager."
"Its interface and the fact that it's integrated with everything in the Microsoft ecosystem are the most valuable features."
"What makes this solution attractive is the licensing model. Microsoft Identity Manager is included in premium versions of Azure AD and in enterprise agreements such as E3. This makes the solution very attractive to many of our clients who are subscribed to those products."
"It is a stable product. You will experience some issues with it, but it's a good product."
"The product’s most valuable feature is stability."
"Microsoft Identity Manager's documentation is good, and its end-user portal is user-friendly."
"It has a very good response time."
"Password management is a valuable feature."
"Understanding what a customer is using, what they are looking for, and allowing permissions is a challenge. We use the information we get in order to understand the behavior of the customer beyond the security and to understand what they have been doing in the last month. It's a nice way to understand what is attracting the customer and what they are clicking. That could be implemented by using this kind of application."
"Its most valuable feature is its scalability."
"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."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"Scalability-wise, I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Oracle Identity Governance is a scalable solution, without a doubt."
"It helps provision the required accesses through policies, approvals, and whatever would be the business requirement."
"The user interface could be improved. The interface between Omada and the user is mainly text-based."
"In our organization, all the data is event-driven, which means that if an attribute is changed in the source system, it can be updated within a few seconds in all end-user systems. There is room for improvement in Omada regarding that. Omada is still batch-based for some processes, so sometimes it can take an hour or even four hours before the execution is run and the update is sent."
"What I would most like to see added to the product is role management, especially enterprise or business role management, and the processes around that."
"I would like more training. As someone who is new to this world, I don't feel that the courses Omada provides are good enough. They should also improve the documentation. It is difficult to learn how to use the solution by yourself"
"The solution should be made more agile for customers to own or configure."
"The reporting on the warehouse data and the import process both have room for improvement."
"If you find an error and you need it fixed, you have to upgrade. It's not like they say, "Okay, we'll fix this problem for you." You have to upgrade. The last time we upgraded, because there was an error in a previous version, we had to pay 150,000 Danish Krone (about $24,000 at the time of this review) to upgrade our systems... That means that we have to pay to get errors fixed that Omada has made in programming the system. I hope they change this way of looking at things."
"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."
"In terms of the identity and access management solution for on-premises environment, I think Microsoft needs to eliminate or minimize the number of workloads for the solution to run in on-premises environment."
"The prices can always be improved, and the integration with the software from other vendors could use an improvement, especially if you are using something like Oracle for a database, SAP for ERP, or something like that."
"It requires a lot of improvements. Microsoft is killing this product and migrating some of the features to Azure AD. The last version of this solution was 2016. If it is going to stay and integrate with Azure AD, its integration needs to be worked on in terms of connectors, etc. It doesn't seem that they are improving it alone. Microsoft wants to integrate it with Azure AD, but the integration is still not complete."
"The governance reporting of the solution can be improved, as it can be difficult to get good, intelligible reports. Microsoft could implement an API of some sort to allow report customization or some form of SQL model, to further customize modules and improve the reporting. That would be a major improvement to the product."
"The setup was difficult. The deployment process is not quick."
"The information that is available for the Active Directory portal is segregated here and there."
"This product was only launched two or three years ago and it is still in the process of becoming stable."
"All actions require logging in to the server."
"Identity Governance is a difficult tool to work with. You have to input many models to understand what is happening with the logins. The user interface is not so good. And a lot of the features we use aren't available out of the box."
"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 would like to see automation in the solution. We need also integration with the Identity Manager. The solution needs to improve in the application integrations part. It also needs to focus on application deployment as well."
"The platform could be enhanced with additional features."
"Automation of validation exercises performed by humans over Recon Exceptions generated as a result of an access synchronization event over a user's need for access or not."
"Pricing for Oracle Identity Governance could be improved. The setup process for the tool could also be faster."
"They need to improve their backup strategy."
"The cost of this product needs to be reduced."
Microsoft Identity Manager is ranked 8th in Identity Management (IM) with 18 reviews while Oracle Identity Governance is ranked 10th in Identity Management (IM) with 66 reviews. Microsoft Identity Manager is rated 7.8, while Oracle Identity Governance is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Identity Manager writes "Constantly evolving while being a crucial feature for today's security needs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Identity Governance writes "A scalable solution designed to meet the requirements of medium and large-sized companies". Microsoft Identity Manager is most compared with SailPoint Identity Security Cloud, Microsoft Entra ID, Saviynt, Microsoft Entra Permissions Management and ForgeRock, whereas Oracle Identity Governance is most compared with SailPoint Identity Security Cloud, One Identity Manager, Saviynt, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Systancia Identity. See our Microsoft Identity Manager vs. Oracle Identity Governance report.
See our list of best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Identity Management (IM) 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.
