We performed a comparison between PingFederate and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, Auth0 and others in Single Sign-On (SSO)."PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with the Active Directory."
"Right now, federation that comes out-of-the-box with single sign-on is the most valuable feature that we have, and also scalability."
"Ease of use is very good, for administrating it. It's very well known."
"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."
"The single sign-on is the solution's most valuable feature"
"Symantec Siteminder Is both scalable and stable."
"All of our applications get a point, click, and you are in, while we increase security at the same time."
"It's agent-based. It's convenient to deploy and integrate."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"If the reporting feature can be integrated into SSO itself that will be an icing on the cake."
"The main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur."
"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."
"CA has reporting at the moment. With the reporting, every particular segmented product has a reporting engine. I would like to see centralized reporting for all of them together."
"The technical support could be better."
"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."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"The initial setup was complex, painful. But that is to be expected of any new setup. When you're a big bank like us, any kind of migration to a new product is hard. I expect it to be painful, and it was painful. But it's not something that you can avoid."
PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 15th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 69 reviews. PingFederate is rated 8.2, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory, CyberArk Identity and Red Hat Single Sign On, whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingAccess, PingID and Microsoft Entra ID.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.