We performed a comparison between CyberArk Identity and PingFederate 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 initial setup of CyberArk Identity was straightforward."
"CyberArk Identity is a mature product."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Identity is the adaptive interface."
"If anyone makes an error, or if an incident occurs by accident, the business will not be harmed as a result of this activity."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The solution helps with auditing, and monitoring, and integrates with Splunk for log analysis. User activity logs are captured in CyberArk Identity and sent to external tools like Splunk for analysis and monitoring."
"It has machine learning and can help clients to learn the environment and understand what is happening."
"The setup, via cloud, is simple."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"They could improve their UI and make everything more user-friendly."
"The OpenID features could improve in CyberArk Identity."
"In terms of general user feedback, the more security you put in front of a user, the more they complain. So usability and the user experience are always a challenge. So there's always room for improvement."
"CyberArk Identity's GUI is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement."
"The product needs to leverage the cloud more, especially in the financial sector, where cloud adoption might be limited. Proper reporting within the cloud is essential. The tool should be more user-friendly to expedite access for users. The current agent-based system poses challenges if a user loses access to the server, making tasks difficult to perform. It should also improve technical support."
"More integrations would be better."
"They can include the Mobile Device Management (MDM) feature."
"CyberArk Identity could improve by having the ability to better manage the network, such as Cisco. There seem to be some issues in this area."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
CyberArk Identity is ranked 9th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 17 reviews while PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. CyberArk Identity is rated 8.2, while PingFederate is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CyberArk Identity writes "Allows Linux and Unix administrators to login with single password ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". CyberArk Identity is most compared with Microsoft Intune, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Microsoft Entra ID, SailPoint IdentityIQ and VMware Workspace ONE, whereas PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Symantec Siteminder, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory and Auth0. See our CyberArk Identity vs. PingFederate report.
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.