We performed a comparison between NetIQ Identity Governance and RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Identity Management (IM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The thing that I find most valuable is that Omada consists of building blocks, which means that you can configure almost anything you want without using custom code, making it pretty easy to do. It's possible to connect to multiple target systems and to create one role that consists of different permissions in the different target systems. So one role in Omada can make sure that you have an account in three different systems."
"We used to have a problem where an employee's access wasn't terminated when they left the company. Now, we have much better visibility into and control over who has access."
"The administrative features and SoD are valuable."
"The most valuable aspects of Omada Identity for me are the automation capabilities."
"The support response time and the freedom from strange bugs and strange things happening in the software 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 relevant feature is Omada's reporting engine. Omada never 'forgets' and archives every process. All steps an admin, user, or manager has executed, are recorded in Omada."
"User-friendly solution."
"NetIQ Identity Governance has improved the security of my company."
"I like the queries and find the catalog to be comparatively powerful."
"When doing a review you can either make manual or automatic fulfillment to immediately apply the manager's decision to the system, like removing or adding new permissions to the user account."
"All three functionalities, access certification, the configuration of duties, and role mining - especially role mining - are very advanced compared with the competition."
"We’re very satisfied with technical support. Usually we get people with the right knowledge who understand the solution very well."
"You can run reports and verify the access each user has. There is a process that runs automatically for access review. It sends an email to the manager and provides a task for the manager to review the users and access. The manager can approve or reject, and then it goes to the application owner for further review. This feature is especially important in large customer environments, as manual review can be challenging."
"This solution has been around for a long time. It has had lots of successful deployments and releases."
"I really like the separation of the duties. It is the most ambitious model in the server because you have to create all the different rules, especially business rules. You have to check with the client and set different policies and rules, and then, you to have refine them. You will notice what is bad in the company and where the real problem is."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"The data collection is excellent and easy to do. It does not require a lot of configuration nor does it require rules to be written like other competitors do."
"RSA Identity Governance and lifecycles are good for the access certification and auditing sections."
"The most valuable feature is the security, in particular, the One Time Password support."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in Omada's integration capabilities, particularly in streamlining complex integrations and enhancing programming logic for better rule management."
"When the re-certification process is launched that makes Omada very slow. There are performance issues in the current version."
"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."
"We are still on Omada on-prem, but I understand that when Omada is in the cloud, you cannot send an attachment via email. We have some emails with attachments for new employees because we have to explain to them how to register and do their multi-factor authentication. All that information is in the attachment. People have to do that before they are in our system. We cannot give them a link to our Intranet and SharePoint because they do not yet have access. They have to register before that, so I need to send the attachments, but this functionality is not there in the cloud."
"The reporting and importing have room for improvement."
"It is not possible to customize reports on Omada Identity."
"Omada's reporting functionality is limited and could benefit from greater customization."
"We need more connectors to cloud applications like AWS."
"The product could use more advanced features related to Identity Intelligence."
"With NetIQ, you have to install two or more products. It would be better if we could install one product and have one server and one dashboard."
"NetIQ Identity Governance is not flexible. Sometimes, filtering information to provide users with options, such as selecting the application to which they want to request access, can be challenging. It needs to improve application integration as well."
"The initial setup has room for improvement."
"The solution should provide more connectors in future releases. The solution also should offer more monitoring."
"Technical support is horrible."
"They haven't really evolved the product to the cloud, so they don't have a cloud solution."
"Every connector that you have in the product needs to be custom-built, so there are not a lot of standard connectors available in the product, because of which there are a lot of hidden consultancy costs."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"The user interface and workflow need improvement, and more connectors would help."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
"This product is missing a lot of features which other competitors are providing. One of the key features that are missing right now is risk scoring. Additionally, there is not much scope for customization - everything is hard-coded and predefined, so it does not allow the developers to make many modifications."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
More RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →
NetIQ Identity Governance is ranked 21st in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is ranked 22nd in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews. NetIQ Identity Governance is rated 8.0, while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of NetIQ Identity Governance writes "Helps to run reports and verify user access but improvement is needed in integration ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle writes "Lacking customization, poor support, but useful auditing". NetIQ Identity Governance is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, OpenText Identity and Access Management and One Identity Manager, whereas RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt, One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). See our NetIQ Identity Governance vs. RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle report.
See our list of best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Identity Management (IM) 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.
