We performed a comparison between IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] 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).
"The integration effort with the end application is quite straightforward and easy."
"SAML 2.0."
"Single Sign-On functionality is valuable because the core purpose of the product is to allow universal (or bespoke) SSO for application suites."
"OAuth 2 is now the de facto standard for API protection and scoped authorized delegation. IBM TAM now supports OAuth 2 and can act as fully compliant OAuth 2 authorization server."
"The Verify feature: A push method which customers are going for."
"As our identity model continues to mature, probably the Federation is most valueable."
"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."
"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."
"SAML is the best thing we're using right now because there is no need for creating an external account."
"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."
"We almost never have outages nor see slowdowns."
"It's quite scalable."
"It provides the breadth and the width to provide solutions for the different kinds of technologies which we have."
"The self-service portal needs improvement."
"An Amazon Machine Image (AMI) for the newer appliance versions for hosting the virtual appliances on AWS will help."
"Multi-factor authentication with social integration needs to improve."
"The profiling element is incredibly robust, but also equally as complex, it requires an off-site course to be able to understand the context or the plethora of options available."
"Looking at their roadmap, they have a broad grasp of the security features which the industry needs."
"We are finding some compatibility issues. We're still working with CA on them."
"We would like to the OAuth be more stable, more issues being fixed rather than not."
"The support could be faster."
"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."
"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 main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur."
"Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved."
More IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Single Sign-On (SSO) while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 17th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 69 reviews. IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] writes "Reverse proxy means applications need only minimal changes to support SSO with ISAM". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". IBM Tivoli Access Manager [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingID and PingAccess.
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.
