We performed a comparison between i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management and IBM Security Verify Access 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 feature that I have found the most valuable is that they are open to connecting with any token. For example, a year ago, we were looking for a soft token, and we started to look for alternatives. They are open to connecting with any token that we looking for."
"The solution has high support capability."
More i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management Pros →
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"The user interface is not quite good and easy to use. There are a lot of menus, and the look and feel is not modern like a modern app."
"The tool needs to improve its cloud capability."
More i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management Cons →
"What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding. We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium. As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
More i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management is ranked 26th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 2 reviews while IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 13th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews. i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management is rated 8.0, while IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management writes "A stable and scalable solution with reasonable pricing ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management is most compared with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, whereas IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Workforce Identity, ForgeRock, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors and best Access Management 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.
