We performed a comparison between NetIQ Access Manager, Oracle Access Manager, and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Auth0, Okta and others in Access Management."The single sign-on feature is excellent."
"The features that we have found most valuable with NetIQ Access Manager are its single sign-on and two factor two second factor database."
"The most valuable features of NetIQ Access Manager are SSO and Multi-Factor Authentication."
"There are lots of options to customize the solution to your needs."
"It's very easy to integrate with applications."
"Once it is set up, it is easy to use and it integrates with most of the products on the market."
"Excellent SSO solution for Oracle products."
"The product was built to be scalable."
"From a technical perspective, the solution is very good we can operate and control the user by ourselves."
"In general, the customization that is offered is very good. The company that I am working with currently is using this feature quite extensively."
"I would tell others that this solution is reliable. If they are looking for a solution that is reliable and that is scalable, then this is a good one."
"The product allows customization via custom code."
"My company has used most features of Oracle Access Manager for various implementations, but the most helpful feature of the solution for the business and customers is single sign-on."
"It's quite scalable."
"Ease of use is very good, for administrating it. It's very well known."
"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."
"It provides the breadth and the width to provide solutions for the different kinds of technologies which we have."
"The most valuable feature is the Federation part of Single Sign On, which is customizable and is easily integrated with any customer application or any third party application."
"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."
"If you look at our organization, and really all financial institutions, we have a lot of legacy apps. So it really helps to get Single Sign-On."
"It has considerably reduced the amount of time that new users would take to join into the organization. Previously, it was a lengthy, manual process because it's a very secure environment, where they need to verify the user before they can actually grant him a user-ID and password. Integrating with the built-in custom application, and exposing CA Single Sign On to the internet, we were able to get the employees onboard. The time that we gained was: previously it would generally take from four to eight weeks for each employee, we brought it to one to two days."
"The application portal could be improved with more options and easier customization."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the security of the infrastructure and the server and the working networking device."
"Having the ability to easily extract and view and compare and version control configurations would be ideal."
"Classification of junctions and new versions of applications, such as APIs, can be added to enable the use of more devices that utilize biometrics for Multi-Factor Authentication to improve the solution."
"I would love to see the upgrade procedure handled more effectively. I would prefer to have OVS installation possibilities, although the upgrade procedures should include the OS as well. You should be able to use the whole application as an appliance."
"Multi-factor authentication requires a lot of processes and technicalities."
"The mobile access to the solution isn't ideal. They should work to improve its functionality."
"Sometimes if a session takes too long, you have to log in again."
"In the next release, they should focus more on use cases related to customer access management, customer identity, and access management."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the interface."
"The product is complicated and difficult to install and configure."
"The solution's lifecycle management is troublesome. Also, another area of issue in the solution is the part involving documentation of certain features."
"The technical support is not very good at all."
"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."
"I would like to see a move towards the newer technologies, which is what we are doing right now. I think that's in the roadmap that's coming, in the 12.8 and 14 releases, but we would like to have it sooner than later."
"The Federation part of CA Single Sign On, it's a bit complex to implement because it involves the SSL certificates, exchange of certificates, and lot of technical details. The documentation misses some important parts of this, so that's the reason it took some time for us to go live."
"The GUIs are not very clear, especially when integrating with other products from CA."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"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."
"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."
"To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly."
Earn 20 points