We performed a comparison between PingID and RSA SecurID based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Authentication Systems solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like best about PingID is that it's very user-friendly. PingID is well-built as a developer tool and regularly upgrades and updates via patches. I also like that PingID has clear documents that will help you integrate it with other solutions."
"The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches."
"The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"The mobile biometric authentication option improved user experience. It's always about security because, with two-factor authentication, it's always a separate device verifying the actual user logging in."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"We use the product to run different reports."
"It's pretty stable as a product."
"I think it is really good when it comes to the hard token side of things."
"The most valuable features of RSA SecurID Access are push notifications, multifactor authentication, and ease of integration and deployment."
"One of the most valuable feature is the ID soft token and hard token."
"I would say that the two-factor authentication and the ease of installation and configuration are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
"We have encountered instances where it is not easy to do authentication."
"PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"It has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution."
"The product is not customizable."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT."
"There are different compliances across the globe; RSA SecurID Access could be more complaint-based."
"The interface needs to improve a lot. It should be easier to manage and navigate."
"It doesn't offer an agent-based or reverse-proxy-based approach to integration, which could enhance its flexibility."
"Sometimes, we encounter issues with other applications that are not compatible with RSA SecurID Access and require expert troubleshooting. At those times, we need additional support from an implementation perspective. This is an area where Oracle can improve as there is no substitute for reliable and efficient support."
PingID is ranked 7th in Authentication Systems with 14 reviews while RSA SecurID is ranked 8th in Authentication Systems with 9 reviews. PingID is rated 8.4, while RSA SecurID is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of PingID writes " A robust cloud-based multi-factor solution with a good customer support team". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA SecurID writes "Enhanced security, reliable, helpful technical support, and easy to install". PingID is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, ForgeRock, PingFederate, SailPoint IdentityIQ and Symantec Siteminder, whereas RSA SecurID is most compared with Yubico YubiKey, Microsoft Entra ID, Fortinet FortiToken, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. See our PingID vs. RSA SecurID report.
See our list of best Authentication Systems vendors.
We monitor all Authentication Systems 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.