We performed a comparison between RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle and Symantec Identity Governance and Administration 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 identity lifecycle support is definitely valuable because we are a complex organization, and there is a lot of onboarding, movement, and offboarding in our organization. We have 31,000 users, and there are a lot of users who are constantly onboarding, offboarding, and moving. So, we need to make sure that these activities are supported. In old times, we used to do everything manually. Everyone was onboarded, offboarded, or moved manually. So, from a business point of view and an economics point of view, identity lifecycle is most valuable. From a security point of view, access review is the most important feature for us."
"The Governance and self-service that can be set up so you can use them yourself to work in the system are the most valuable features. End users can be enabled to help themselves."
"Its best feature is definitely the process design. It is quite easy and straightforward to design a process."
"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."
"I appreciate all the support we receive from Omada."
"We don't have to go in and do a lot of the work that we did before. It may have saved us somewhere in the range of 10 to 30 percent of the time we spent on provisioning access."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic provisioning and reconciliation of things like the Active Directory groups and memberships."
"We used to have a problem where an employee's access wasn't terminated when they left the company. Now, we have much better visibility into and control over who has access."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"The data collection is excellent and easy to do. It does not require a lot of configuration nor does it require rules to be written like other competitors do."
"RSA Identity Governance and lifecycles are good for the access certification and auditing sections."
"The most valuable feature is the security, in particular, the One Time Password support."
"It has improved our user management. It is definitely streamlined."
"Connector Xpress and Policy Xpress and the new interface."
"The scalability potential is there if a company needs to expand."
"I've used it to manage users, create and update, delete users, change passwords, and assign and change rules."
"It is easy to use, and does not requires an extensive programming or development background."
"The most valuable features are role-based access and identity provisioning, which allow a single point of user access to multiple places."
"It has good endpoint support and endpoint connectivity to different versioning endpoints."
"It's a very useful tool that has improved our client's security, from day one."
"The backend is pretty good but the self-service request access screen, the GUI, needs improvement. It's an old-fashioned screen. Also, Omada has reports, but I wouldn't dare show them to the business because they look like they're from 1995. I know they are working on these things and that’s good, because they’re really needed."
"I would like to search on date fields, which is not possible now."
"The account management integration isn't bad, but it isn't plug-and-play like Microsoft Azure. You need some deep development knowledge to set up the connectors."
"There's a challenge with handling large amounts of data in this system."
"The comprehensiveness of Omada's out-of-the-box connectors for the applications we use could be better. We are getting a new HR system called Cornerstone for which they do not have an out-of-the-box connector, so we have to take the REST connector and play around with it."
"If I had to name one thing, it would be the user interface (UI)."
"The architecture of the entire system should also be less complex. The way they process the data is complex."
"Omada could communicate better with us about the product roadmap. We haven't gotten any updates about it. The user interface is often a bit difficult to understand. It isn't optimized for small screens, so it doesn't display all of the information clearly, so users need to scroll a lot."
"This product is missing a lot of features which other competitors are providing. One of the key features that are missing right now is risk scoring. Additionally, there is not much scope for customization - everything is hard-coded and predefined, so it does not allow the developers to make many modifications."
"Every connector that you have in the product needs to be custom-built, so there are not a lot of standard connectors available in the product, because of which there are a lot of hidden consultancy costs."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
"The user interface and workflow need improvement, and more connectors would help."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"The development process to create this connector is not as easy as I would like."
"It has a large footprint which you'd expect to be much, much smaller. Just to run basic services, we have 10 different servers. Also, if it were easier to manage, that'd be useful."
"The product has a lot of need for improvement. Our issues are being raised back to the vendor as enhancements."
"The Identity tool needs to do more kinds of reporting for audit purposes. It doesn't really track any of the metrics that are useful to us, at this point."
"The drawback with the CA Identity Manager is they don't have a connector to HR systems like SAP, or PeopleSoft, or Workday. That's a major drawback with the CA Identity Manager. For that we have to do lots of custom quoting to get data from HR systems. And if they could connect it to GRC systems, that's good to have in an identity product."
"There are times that it takes too long to generate reports and to run the assessment tools to collect the information."
"Provisioning has a dependency on Windows."
"Identity Manager has a lack of entitlement support, unlike other products that I have worked with."
More RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Identity Governance and Administration Pricing and Cost Advice →
RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is ranked 22nd in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews while Symantec Identity Governance and Administration is ranked 19th in Identity Management (IM) with 65 reviews. RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is rated 6.8, while Symantec Identity Governance and Administration is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle writes "Lacking customization, poor support, but useful auditing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Identity Governance and Administration writes "Works well on-premises and has partial capabilities but lacks many feaures". RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt, One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), whereas Symantec Identity Governance and Administration is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, AlertEnterprise Enterprise Guardian, Microsoft Identity Manager, SAP Identity Management and BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management. See our RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle vs. Symantec Identity Governance and Administration 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.