We performed a comparison between Imanami GroupID and One Identity Active Roles based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Provisioning Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system. Based on that job code, we use the query tool and say that anybody who is in this job code gets these groups added to them, or conversely, if they change job codes, it removes the ones that they shouldn't have and adds the one they should. That runs every night, and the next day, everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"The provisioning and deprovisioning saves a lot of time and skips a lot of errors."
"Secure access is the most valuable feature."
"It's valuable to us in that it resembles the native tools that most people have grown accustomed to... Active Roles resembles traditional tools, such as from Microsoft. That is really good because it eases the way people interact with the tool."
"The most valuable features include auditing, dynamic grouping, and creating dynamic groups based on AD attributes."
"Active Roles improved the management of users, groups, and AD objects in the organization."
"Because of Active Roles, we're able to synchronize on an even more regular basis. It enables us to provide even more information to the Active Directory, which helped us to group our users in a more consistent manner."
"It provides automatic provisioning/update/deprovisioning workflows from a source system to a target system."
"With the use of the sync service we were able to import information from multiple external systems and populate them within our space and leverage them for downstream systems."
"The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO."
"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools."
"The way you can search groups could be better."
"The third area for improvement, which is the weakest portion of ARS, is the workflow engine, which was introduced a few years ago. It's slow and not very intuitive to use, so I would like to see improvement there."
"In terms of improvement, it could be made even more user-friendly for administrators when they need to create new workflows and rule sets."
"There are some features that we think should be included in their next release. We think these things would take them to the next level: the ability to completely force or limit any dynamic group processing to specific servers, change-tracking reporting of virtual attributes, and the ability to use files as inputs to automation workloads. These things have also been talked about. Knowing them, they're probably working on them."
"For ActiveRoles, it would be good if the product supports multi-scripting language. You can use only VBScript."
"When doing a workflow, we would like a bit better feedback on the screen, as we're trying to get it to work. For example, there is a "Find" function that you need set up in a workflow to do some of the automation. It is not the easiest to get a result from those finds when you're trying to do that. In the MMC, they have a couple different types of workflows. In this particular case, we use their workflow functionality to find all of X within the environment, then if you find it, do X, Y, and Z. You can have multiple steps. When you do that search function within that workflow, it's really hard to find out, "Is my search working?" It would be nice if there was some feedback on the screen so you could see if your search is working properly within the workflow."
"The ability to send logs to a SIEM would be very beneficial."
"The user and group management in Azure AD could be better. Our focus these days is dynamic sharing with several on-prem Microsoft applications like SharePoint."
Imanami GroupID is ranked 10th in User Provisioning Software with 3 reviews while One Identity Active Roles is ranked 5th in User Provisioning Software with 17 reviews. Imanami GroupID is rated 8.4, while One Identity Active Roles is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Imanami GroupID writes "Simplifies the task of managing groups and is affordable and easy to implement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of One Identity Active Roles writes "Single interface and workflows simplify AD and Azure AD management efficiency and security". Imanami GroupID is most compared with Netwrix Auditor, ManageEngine ADManager Plus and SailPoint IdentityIQ, whereas One Identity Active Roles is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, ManageEngine ADManager Plus, SailPoint IdentityIQ, One Identity Manager and Softerra Adaxes. See our Imanami GroupID vs. One Identity Active Roles report.
See our list of best User Provisioning Software vendors and best Active Directory Management vendors.
We monitor all User Provisioning Software 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.