We performed a comparison between Safe-T Secure Application Access 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."If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"We almost never have outages nor see slowdowns."
"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 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."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use for our managers."
"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."
"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."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
"To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"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 main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur."
"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 are finding some compatibility issues. We're still working with CA on them."
"The support could be faster."
"Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved."
Safe-T Secure Application Access is ranked 25th in Access Management while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 16th in Access Management. Safe-T Secure Application Access is rated 7.8, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Safe-T Secure Application Access writes "The architecture is open to integration and development, making the product very flexible". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". Safe-T Secure Application Access is most compared with , whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with PingFederate, ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingID and Microsoft Entra ID.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all 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.