We performed a comparison between IBM Security Verify Access and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Access Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"IWA is an out-of-the-box feature. The SAML-based federation is standard for all tools. However, CA Single Sign-On has made the federation configuration way too simple and handy to set up and use."
"Symantec Siteminder Is both scalable and stable."
"Federation is valuable, for sure, because we have a lot of third-party vendors that we need to integrate with, and this is a turnkey solution in some ways."
"A valuable feature of Siteminder is the way it handles bulk traffic. The features it has, in terms of routing the traffic and load balancing, are good."
"I liked the debugging part. There are only two files (trace file and log file) that you need to look into while performing debugging, and the logs give you the exact info on where and what needs to be fixed."
"Authentication & Authorization are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes. That has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"The most valuable feature is that it meets the requirements of the customer. You have a lot of features in the product. Every product has them, but the question is, are these products going to meet the requirement of the customer?"
"The Directory is secure. It's our user store, and it's important to keep our members safe. The product does well with that."
"What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding. We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium. As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"I think they need to integrate some of the newer types of authentication into the product. I'm not seeing the innovation when it comes to biometrics in the product."
"We are finding some compatibility issues. We're still working with CA on them."
"An area Siteminder could improve on is that there are a few limitations, in terms of new protocols for OpenID. If I want to have different scopes, the features are limited. They also do not have APIs exposed, which is a major drawback. API is a feature I would like to see included in the next release."
"We're currently unable to find information about if the solution can do a full implementation with SQL. Some better and more accessible documentation for new users or those curious about the product would be helpful."
"Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved."
"To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly."
"They need to make configurations easier, and not have the engineer having to guess what will happen when he changes a particular setting."
"The support could be faster."
IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 11th in Access Management with 7 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 12th in Access Management with 69 reviews. IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Workforce Identity, ForgeRock, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Akamai Enterprise Application Access, whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingAccess and CyberArk Identity. See our IBM Security Verify Access vs. Symantec Siteminder report.
See our list of best Access Management vendors and best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors.
We monitor all Access Management 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.