We performed a comparison between Oracle Identity Governance and SailPoint IdentityIQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Provisioning Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the automatic provisioning and reconciliation of things like the Active Directory groups and memberships."
"The most valuable aspects of Omada Identity for me are the automation capabilities."
"The benefits of Omada Identity include a holistic way of viewing access, the ability to give people access, and automation."
"For me, the best feature of Omada Identity is its web interface because it's really easy for users to understand."
"The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology."
"Omada's onboarding features reflect our processes for onboarding new employees well. That is the primary reason we use this solution. We use role-based access control. I'm not sure how much it has improved our security posture, but it's made managing identities more convenient."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"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."
"It's a stable and scalable solution."
"I have found the OIM Connector framework, based on ICF, to be the most valuable feature."
"The proactive controls which can be configured to a granular level allowing the organization the flexibility to meet the changing demands of the workforce."
"The most important features that have impacted our environment recently are the Single Sign-On solution, role based provisioning, and the automated provisioning of accounts to target systems."
"What I found most useful in Oracle Identity Governance, feature-wise, are provisioning, de-provisioning, and termination. Those features are very good. Oracle Identity Governance can also be easily integrated with non-Oracle products, which I find valuable."
"The most valuable features in Oracle Identity Governance are identity and access management."
"The most valuable feature is the user manager certification that approves or removes user access."
"Understanding what a customer is using, what they are looking for, and allowing permissions is a challenge. We use the information we get in order to understand the behavior of the customer beyond the security and to understand what they have been doing in the last month. It's a nice way to understand what is attracting the customer and what they are clicking. That could be implemented by using this kind of application."
"The basic concept is most valuable. I like how they have designed the solution. They create an Identity Cube, and then they do all the processes and configuration around the Identity Cube."
"Provisioning in multiple environments."
"This solution has improved our organization through its ease of application onboarding, approvals, provisioning, and lifecycle UI performance."
"The most powerful feature of the solution is its platform-based approach. Unlike other solutions, this tool offers a high level of customization. It is an open and flexible platform, allowing users to tailor it to their needs. This ability to customize and adapt the solution to individual requirements makes the solution stand out as a powerful product."
"One of the most valuable aspects of SailPoint is its open integration interface."
"Security and administration for any new/current access."
"The most valuable features of SailPoint IdentityIQ are the reporting because it is better than other solutions. The workflows can be customized to our requirements and the overall features are good."
"The solution is one of the main security products you need to control access and have visibility into what's happening in your organization. It helps with managing access to applications, ensuring governance, and obtaining certifications."
"I would like more training. As someone who is new to this world, I don't feel that the courses Omada provides are good enough. They should also improve the documentation. It is difficult to learn how to use the solution by yourself"
"When you do a recalculation of an identity, it's hard to understand what was incorrect before you started the recalculation, and which values are actually updated... all you see are all the new fields that are provisioned, instead of seeing only the fields that are changed."
"One thing that we are not so happy about is the user interface. It is a bit dated. I know that they are working on that, but the user interface is quite dated. Currently, it is a little bit difficult to customize the user interface to the need of the business, which is a little bit disappointing. It needs it to be a little bit easier to operate, and it should have a better user interface."
"We are trying to use Omada's standards and to adapt our processes. But we have had some trouble with the bad documentation. This is something that they could improve on. It has not been possible for us to analyze some of the problems so far, based on the documentation. We always need consultants. The documentation should include some implementation hints and some guidelines for implementing the processes."
"If you find an error and you need it fixed, you have to upgrade. It's not like they say, "Okay, we'll fix this problem for you." You have to upgrade. The last time we upgraded, because there was an error in a previous version, we had to pay 150,000 Danish Krone (about $24,000 at the time of this review) to upgrade our systems... That means that we have to pay to get errors fixed that Omada has made in programming the system. I hope they change this way of looking at things."
"When making a process, you should be able to use some coding to do some advanced calculations. The calculations you can currently do are too basic. I would also like some additional script features."
"The comprehensiveness of Omada's out-of-the-box connectors for the applications we use could be better. We are getting a new HR system called Cornerstone for which they do not have an out-of-the-box connector, so we have to take the REST connector and play around with it."
"The solution should be made more agile for customers to own or configure."
"OIA needs to improve its governance features."
"The cost of this product needs to be reduced."
"I have yet to see its full functionality exercised in my organization."
"You need full visibility because the suite of features are complex and you have to be clear on what you want to implement."
"An area for improvement in Oracle Identity Governance is that it isn't refreshed or updated as much. The only area that changed on it in the last five years was the GUI. The solution still has the same installation, troubleshooting, and configuration. Oracle Identity Governance is still very complicated when compared to other solutions. It seems that Oracle doesn't focus too much on Oracle Identity Governance in terms of making some improvements to it."
"Simplify & add more functionality to Identity Cloud Service (IDCS)."
"The platform could be enhanced with additional features."
"Pricing for Oracle Identity Governance could be improved. The setup process for the tool could also be faster."
"We faced some issues while integrating the solution with a third-party tool."
"Finding integration experts for SailPoint in the North American market can be challenging, and transitioning to a no-code or low-code setup could reduce dependence on specialized skills."
"It tends to be more expensive, but at the end of the day, it works."
"If you compare Saviynt and Okta Workforce Identity versus SailPoint IdentityIQ, SailPoint IdentityIQ needs to improve its UI."
"The cost of this solution is high. The technical assistance center could be improved. They're very good, but considering the intricacies of the solution, they can further improve."
"They should lower the price and technical support should be better."
"There is a need for further enhancements, specifically in the multifactor authentication capabilities."
"The mover process for this solution could be improved."
Oracle Identity Governance is ranked 4th in User Provisioning Software with 66 reviews while SailPoint IdentityIQ is ranked 1st in User Provisioning Software with 60 reviews. Oracle Identity Governance is rated 7.4, while SailPoint IdentityIQ is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Oracle Identity Governance writes "A scalable solution designed to meet the requirements of medium and large-sized companies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SailPoint IdentityIQ writes "Flexible, easy to customize, and not too difficult to set up". Oracle Identity Governance is most compared with One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Microsoft Identity Manager, Saviynt and BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, whereas SailPoint IdentityIQ is most compared with Saviynt, Microsoft Entra ID, One Identity Manager, ForgeRock and NetIQ Identity Manager. See our Oracle Identity Governance vs. SailPoint IdentityIQ report.
See our list of best User Provisioning Software vendors and best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all User Provisioning Software 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.
Here follow my inputs about your questions concerning SailPoint IQ and Oracle.
WHERE DOES IT COMES FROM?
1. As representatives of SailPoint told me in 2008, SailPoint IQ was designed in 2005 by reusing the functional and technical requirements of SocGen Corporate Investment Banking (I participated to the initial design in 2004 in Paris… we live in a small world).
2. Oracle Identity Governance was formerly RBAC X purchased by Sun Microsystems then selected as the Identity Analytics components by Oracle.
WHAT ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THAT?
Both solutions are based on the Role Based Access Control model (RBAC) consisting of telling who occupies some business roles to be granted more or less consistent list of authorizations.
This is a model of the second generation while the NIST envisioned up to 6 generations in 2009! So… it’s a pretty old model.
IF ONE ORGANIZATION SUCCEEDS TO MAKE IT WITH RBAC
If one succeeds to implement this model, then it is possible to tell:
1. Who should have access to what by occupying a role that has to be mined with a half automated process that is pretty laboring and expensive,
2. Who has ‘’out role’’ entitlements to be terminated. Reviews of entitlements can be focused on ‘’Out roles’’ and even if they don’t understand the descriptions of authorizations, managers can take a decision.
HEAVY PREREQUISITES TO MAKE IT
LABOR, TIME AND CASH BECAUSE OF HEAVY PREREQUISITES
If one large organization is willing to satisfy the core prerequisite of these 2 solutions, it is necessary:
1. to spend 30 to 60 minutes for each department of an organization to mine User Roles and to associate a list of authorizations that are impossible to understand by any business analyst,
2. then spend about an hour with each manager to validate the roles and associated entitlements (impossible to understand by managers as well),
3. last but not least, implement the roles and lists of entitlements.
REAL USE CASE IN THE USA
Large organizations are totally unable to implement such an approach for following reasons:
1. ..X for example used SailPoint IQ and mined 1.500 roles instead of estimated 15.000 (low estimation),
2. ..X was unable to validate roles because managers could not understand labels of authorizations such as: ZZX00152, ZX215521, zz_top_group_senior,…
3. it would have been:
a. too long to make it for 126.000 employees / 10 team members in average = 12.600 work units located in about 100 countries * 30 minutes in average = 787 man days without vacations, travels, coordination!
b. too expensive:
i. 1 role analyst * 30 minutes in average * 80$ per hour * 12.600 units = 504.000$ for role mining only
ii. 1 role analyst + 1 manager * 220$ per hour * 12.600 units = 2.772 K$ for role validation
iii. Implementation of roles into IAM solution such as Oracle Identity Manager or IBM SIM is a technical thing that costs more…
IF ONE ORGANIZATION CANNOT MAKE IT BECAUSE MANAGERS DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT MEANS ‘’ZX023455``
SailPoint and Oracle have nice features to add translations to entitlements.
The thing is that where you have several ten thousand labels to translate…
* it takes time and lots of $ before to deliver.
* People around a table will take time to come to a shared understanding (if they are very motivated)
IF ONE ORGANIZATION CANNOT MAKE IT BECAUSE IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO TRANSLATE ‘’ZX023455``
* SailPoint proposes to use Risk Based approach and to add Risk Criteria to several ten thousands labels… (sic) to be considered from a Risk Standpoint…
* Oracle proposes to use indicators and requests and to let managers think about a decision to be taken thanks to dashboards and reports. Some kind of Business Intelligence.
WHAT IS THE OPTION?
1. ...X came to the conclusion that it was not possible to make it with SailPoint IQ alone. A custom algorithm is necessary to enhance SailPoint capabilities.
2. The Gartner Group exposed the issue for the last 3 years. Advanced analytics and Self Learning systems will make it.
3. We, at EasyPatternZ:
a. are the first to make it with Artificial Intelligence.
b. take about 5 seconds per work unit in average to deliver the answer to the question ‘’Who has access to what, why, whatever the circumstances’’ better and faster than any leader.
c. made it 3 times since 2013. The Federal Government of Canada will qualify it between April and July this year with 23.000 employees.
d. Are watched by USCIS.
My experience in IAM is with HPE Aruba ClearPass & Cisco ISE. A couple of other competing products, such as the ForeScout and Auconet products that were evaluated at a high level, but didn’t progress further.
I’m not at all familiar with Sailpoint IdentityIQ and Oracle Identity Governance and couldn’t provide any meaningful insight into either of them.
I am not an SC so my response is very salesy :).
Sailpiont is more of a next gen solution in the IAM space.
If an organization was a huge Oracle shop I would have them consider Oracle – if not I would be heading to Sailpoint.
*Sailpoint is as robust but does not have the legacy issues that Oracle has to deal with which makes it easier to implement/operate
Sailpoint will also be lower in price.
Basically the question is 'what will you achive ?'. I agree with the comment above, Oracle is known to have a high TCO due to complexity. The fact is also that Oracle claims to ease the end-user experience but this mean a mandatory extensive preparation in order to provide users with accurate and in context information. Sailpoint IIQ is probably easier to implement and indeed is efficient in respect of RBAC and ABAC or preferably some kind of hybrid modeling. Don't forget IAM needs a very good preparation (analysis, modeling, inventory, classification, process analysis etc.) From my experience, IIQ is able to respond to complex needs and is far cheaper than Oracle and this allows to invest in added value activities (extra licence). Sorry if this is not a factual response in terms of pros & conts between OIG and IIQ but IIQ is more affordable and from my point of view covers all needed capabilities to build a strong IAM solution.
I think at a high level, both are going to provide the same functions. You'll see the main differences in how one has to implement workflows, UIs, and rules. Where Oracle uses BPML, ADF and OES, respectively, SailPoint is more Java-centric, IMHO. I found OIG's SOD rule definition UI hard to use and some serious limitations in its hierarchal role model. I think SailPoint has surpassed OIG in its extensibility with the framework in its 7.0 release. I would definitely evaluate roadmap if you want to stay on-prem.