We performed a comparison between RSA Adaptive Authentication and ThreatMetrix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, Fortinet and others in Authentication Systems."Our customer are seeing value from the product, as they experience cost reductions. They can stop fraud from their customers, then their customers can have a better experience from their services."
"Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the stock tokens. That works the best for us."
"Risk Engine’s risk score, eFN, GeoIP, and device binding all coming together in the Policy Rules to decide when to escalate to MFA."
"The capability to manage your business policy related to security when required without vendor involvement."
"The user interface, the portal, is very helpful in describing what attributes of concern are associated with the device."
"The solution is stable."
"There is excellent documentation available."
"Accessible custom rules with a monthly update on performance."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable thing is about the IP. They have a database of malicious IP addresses against which they check. They have a huge database for routed devices and the devices that have been used in the past to commit fraud. They have extensive historical records of all of that information, and that's probably the most valuable thing about ThreatMetrix. Over the years, they have been collecting and persisting globally across all the banking and financial services. They have been storing all this information. It is this stored information that I and my team find valuable; it is not so much their technology. If you are running it on a simulator and trying to maliciously clone and copy IP addresses and stuff like that, they have a bunch of technologies, like routes section and all the other stuff. It is just that they have something that no one else can deal with, that is, massive amounts of big data about the malicious IP addresses, malicious device fingerprinting, the fingerprinting router devices, and the fingerprints. You can query against this stored information to find out whether your app is in a good, nice environment. If yes, you get a green light. The last time I checked, there were about 400 or 500 features that they can stack against, which is pretty extensive. They give you a score against all those features for every application that you installed on it. It is pretty good in that sense."
"The most valuable feature the solution has is that it is able to do a fairly accurate fraud assessment of a credit card transaction based on a variety of parameters configured by the merchant."
"RSA Adaptive Authentication lacks a mechanism to verify the identity of a new user in the Enrollment event workflow."
"The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated."
"Better filters when searching for events. The current features for current filters when searching fraud events are not very comprehensive. You can only filter by certain fields in the transaction."
"I would like to see a more adaptive type of solution, something that we could use on our web pages..."
"Reporting modules is one of the major areas that can be improved further."
"It has taken years to implement."
"Could be more intuitive and user friendly."
"We are only using one feature. We haven't found the other features to be very good or very powerful."
"We encountered a few issues with API calls to the solution."
"The interface does look a bit outdated."
"SDK is probably where the biggest issue is. The SDK configuration is a bit lacking. If you are integrating it into your workflow, it is very cumbersome and very difficult to integrate. You have to understand and be an expert in low-level mobile applications to integrate this stuff. Integration should be easy based on what they are providing, but unfortunately, it is not. It is very difficult. My work has been trying to simplify the integration process because integrations bring a lot of value. Most companies don't see their value because it is such a difficult process. For integration, you have to get it right as well, but it is very difficult to get it right because they don't help you in tuning your future parameters. Because of this, it is very difficult to tune your future parameters and your risk score. If you are Uber, your risk score will be very different from a banking client that is pushing funds. These two things need to be improved for me. The rest is pretty good."
"One limitation is it only maintains six months' worth of data. It would be nice if it went back even further to help us really identify and flush out patterns that go on longer."
"It would be useful if they could offer real-time processing."
Earn 20 points
RSA Adaptive Authentication is ranked 25th in Authentication Systems while ThreatMetrix is ranked 2nd in Fraud Detection and Prevention with 7 reviews. RSA Adaptive Authentication is rated 6.8, while ThreatMetrix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of RSA Adaptive Authentication writes "It stops fraud in banks and reduces their costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatMetrix writes "Stable with a good interface and offers excellent event reports". RSA Adaptive Authentication is most compared with RSA Authentication Manager, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and IBM Trusteer, whereas ThreatMetrix is most compared with BioCatch, FICO Falcon Platform, Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub, iovation FraudForce and Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management.
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.
