We performed a comparison between IBM Security Verify Access and Microsoft Entra ID based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The support response time and the freedom from strange bugs and strange things happening in the software are valuable."
"We are able to onboard new user accounts much faster by automating the process and standardizing our operations globally. Previously, there were many individual processes and manual admin interactions. We also see a lot of cost savings and benefits because through automation and standardization."
"The customer success and support teams have been crucial."
"The benefits of Omada Identity include a holistic way of viewing access, the ability to give people access, and automation."
"The administrative features and SoD are valuable."
"What I like most is that we can always find a solution, and we can also find the cause when something goes wrong. I like that the most because everything is in one way or another traceable. That is what I like most. I like its reliability."
"The most valuable functionality of the solution for us is that when employees stop working for the municipality, they are automatically disabled in Active Directory. Omada controls that 100 percent. They are disabled for 30 days, and after that time Omada deletes the Active Directory account. The same type of thing happens when we employ a new person. Their information is automatically imported to Omada and they are equipped with the roles and rights so they can do their jobs."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic provisioning and reconciliation of things like the Active Directory groups and memberships."
"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."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"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."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"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."
"Coming from a traditional on-premises Active Directory infrastructure, it is purely a SaaS platform. It is global. It is evergreen. It is always evolving. It is core to the Microsoft Ecosystem."
"It is easy to manage. I can manage systems with policies and automate our systems. Any professional system can be easily integrated with Azure Active Directory. It is widely used with Windows versions."
"The solution adds an extra layer of security."
"It enhances security, especially for unregistered devices. It 1000% has security features that help to improve our security posture. It could be irritating at times, but improving the security posture is exactly what the Authenticator app does."
"It is very simple. The Active Directory functions are very easy for us. Its integration with anything is very easy. We can easily do third-party multifactor authentication."
"It is a central point where we provide the cloud lock-in for our company. We focus the multi-factor authentication within Azure AD before jumping to other clouds or software as a service offerings. So, it is the central point when you need to access something for our company within the cloud. You go to Azure AD and can authenticate there, then you move from there to the target destination or the single sign-on."
"It enhanced our end user experience quite a bit. Instead of the days of having to contact the service desk with challenges for choosing their password, users can go in and do it themselves locally, regardless of where they are in the world. This has certainly made it a better experience accessing their applications. Previously, a lot of times, they had to remember multiple usernames and passwords for different systems. This solution brings it all together, using a single sign-on experience."
"Conditional Access is a helpful feature because it allows us to provide better security for our users."
"The user interface could be improved. The interface between Omada and the user is mainly text-based."
"The solution should be made more agile for customers to own or configure."
"Omada's performance could be better because we had some latency issues. Still, it's difficult to say how much of that is due to Omada versus the resources used by our other vendors in our on-prem environment. Considering the resources we have invested into making it run well, it's slightly slower than we would expect."
"The UI design needs improvement. One or two years ago, Omada changed its user interface to simplify, but the simplification has not really kicked in."
"The reporting and importing have room for improvement."
"Omada's reporting functionality is limited and could benefit from greater customization."
"There's a challenge with handling large amounts of data in this system."
"The Omada Identity SaaS version doesn't provide all the features Omada Identity on-premise provides."
"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."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"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."
"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."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"The solution could be cheaper."
"Adding a new account can be tricky."
"Lacks integration between applications and phones."
"Better integration with external governance products would be a welcome addition to Azure AD."
"One thing that bothers me about Azure AD is that I can't specify login hours. I have to use an on-premises instance of Active Directory if I want to specify the hours during which a user can log in. For example, if I want to restrict login to only be possible during working hours, to prevent overtime payments or to prevent lawsuits, I can't do this using only Azure AD."
"When you start to deal with legacy applications, provisioning is not as intuitive."
"The monitoring dashboard could be a bit better."
"Azure Active Directory could improve by having an authentication service for laptops or desktop computers running Mac and Linux operating systems. They currently have authentication capabilities for Microsoft Windows. Having this capability would benefit people because in today's world everybody is working from the home environment."
IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 13th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 190 reviews. IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Okta Workforce Identity, ForgeRock, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM), CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and PingID, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and Cisco Duo. See our IBM Security Verify Access vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors, best Identity Management (IM) vendors, and best Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) 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.
