"The most valuable feature of Entrust GetAccess is its performance."
"The single sign-on is the solution's most valuable feature"
"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."
"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."
"Ease of use is very good, for administrating it. It's very well known."
"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."
"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."
"It's quite scalable."
"Authentication & Authorization are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes. That has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"Entrust GetAccess is a very expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved."
"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 would like to the OAuth be more stable, more issues being fixed rather than not."
"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."
"I'd like to see a rework of the user directory configuration."
"To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly."
"In future releases, I would like to see maybe more capabilities with some more modern authentication."
"I would prefer to see their SAML integration be a more streamlined and easier interface."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Entrust GetAccess is ranked 1st in Web Access Management with 1 review while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 3rd in Web Access Management with 69 reviews. Entrust GetAccess is rated 10.0, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Entrust GetAccess writes "A scalable solution that can be used for hardware-based authentication". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". Entrust GetAccess is most compared with , whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingID and PingAccess.
See our list of best Web Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Web 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.
