WSO2 Identity Server Reviews

We deployed WSO2 Identity Server to fulfill our single sign-on (SSO) requirements. Whenever we implement the API Manager, instead of using the API Manager's inbuilt key manager, we use WSO2 Identity Server's key manager due to its additional functionalities.

WSO2 Identity Server's key management feature stands out as a particularly impactful feature for enhancing security. Additionally, from a user perspective, the self-user portal and user profile management capabilities are highly valuable. It allows users to manage their profiles, change passwords, and offers a self-care portal type of functionality. The single sign-on capability integrates seamlessly with various platforms, including Google, Facebook, LDAP, and Active Directory, which supports rapid product launches.

Currently, all required features are supported. If new use cases for artificial intelligence arise, it could be beneficial to incorporate those. However, for our current projects, WSO2 Identity Server meets all our needs.

We deployed it along with the API for our single sign-on requirements.

It handles large volumes of identity data and traffic without any issues.

Scalability is excellent. I would rate it ten out of ten.

The customer support is really good. We receive good support from the OEM, and they provide effective solutions when we raise tickets.

Positive

Previously, we worked with Keycloak. Keycloak is also a good solution, but we find WSO2 Identity Server more beneficial when using it as part of an API gateway product due to its tight integration.

The initial setup was easy.

We are resellers and also handle the implementation.

The pricing is currently the same as the API Manager, so it's not surprising. Since we used it primarily for SSO and the self portal, there were no additional pricing concerns.

We have used Keycloak in previous projects.

I am completely satisfied with WSO2 Identity Server and would definitely recommend it to other companies. Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for Python Auth.

The most effective features of the product for authentication needs stem from the API integrations that are possible with different systems.

The price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. From an improvement perspective, the pricing of the product needs to be lowered.

Multi-factor authentication is an area of concern where improvements are required. Integration of the tool with other systems is quite problematic.

In the future, I want the tool to have more CI/CD pipelines.

I have been using WSO2 Identity Server for one to two years.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 50 to 100 people in my company use the product.

My company uses Auth0. My company uses many local brands and not many international brands.

The product's initial setup phase is easy.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises version.

The solution can be deployed in two to three hours.

The product is not for cost-savings but for security purposes. The product has been helpful in the area of time-saving by 20 to 30 percent, especially for some of my online customers.

I rate the product price an eight out of ten. There is a need to pay more for the extra features provided by the solution.

Though in our company, we try to do the coding part by ourselves, it is not easy to manage, and that is why we started to use WSO2 Identity Server.

My company uses multi-factor authentication and we tried using it integrating with FIDO Server. It was done to make sure that the multi-factor authentication feature gets used during the authentication process.

AI can be used for better authentication, but right now, our company has not used any such feature. I recommend the product to others. It is easy to install and easy to use. Understanding a feature before you integrate a tool with other tools is important.

In my company, there is another team with five to six engineers that takes care of the support part of the tool.

The product has helped me to meet my security management requirements as per ISO 7001.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for customer identity management, authenticating customers coming in through a web portal. We also use it as a single sign-on platform linked to Active Directory.

The solution's licensing model could be more flexible, and pricing could be improved.

I have been using WSO2 Identity Server for a few months.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I have previously worked with DataPower, SailPoint, and ForgeRock.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We didn't face any integration challenges while implementing the product. Integration is very open these days and is no longer a problem. I would recommend the solution to other users because it is well-documented and not much complicated.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The solution gets the job done, and we don't have to do the main configuration.

The solution seems to be pretty outdated. The solution’s pricing could be better.

I have been using WSO2 Identity Server for two to three years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 30 to 40 users are using the solution in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

WSO2 Identity Server is not an expensive solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

It was easy to integrate WSO2 Identity Server with other tools. The solution’s integration just took a few hours. I would recommend the solution to other organizations. Around ten engineers and I are involved in regularly maintaining the tool.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use WSO2 Identity Server for API management. It integrates Active Directory, providing security and access control for applications.

The product provides easy integration between API manager and IT server components.

The product needs to be available in marketplaces for subscription. They should offer competitive pricing models. There could be a better service line compared to Kong. It will help us further adapt and promote it easily.

We have been using WSO2 Identity Server for six years.

I rate the product’s stability an eight out of ten.

It is an operator model. So, we have only five to six users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight out of ten.

The product’s technical support documentation could be better. Even though it has an open-source version, we have to use the license option as they don’t have a proper support model.

Neutral

We are using WS02, Kong, and Azure simultaneously. Compared to WSO2, Kong has an efficient API manager.

I rate the initial setup process a six out of ten. There needs to be a good support model and easy-to-understand documentation. It takes a week to build it. Later, upgrading the version takes a maximum of four hours to one day. It requires two executives for implementation. However, if they have expertise, it can be done by only one executive.

I rate WSO2 Identity Server’s pricing a seven out of ten. They offer two types of license subscriptions. One is Apache, where we can build it ourselves. The second one is the WSO2 purchase license.

They should bring in some good pricing models to host the marketplace. At the moment, they don’t have proper model data.

We evaluated Akamai. However, it is too costly. Thus, we explored several other options depending on the quality and Gartner ranking. We found Kong holds the first rank there.

WSO2 Identity Server is a user-friendly and easy-to-adapt product. I rate it a seven out of ten.

WSO2 Identity Server is used as a guaranteed single sign-on between applications.

The single sign-on procedure itself, as well as the ability to connect to external user sources such as Microsoft Active Directory and LDAP servers, are the solution's most valuable features.

Several new features were added in the last release that we have not yet explored. Perhaps after I explore it, I'll notice something I'd like to include. But, for the time being, I believe it contains everything we need.

The code could be improved. I've had some difficulties working with the source code at times, but this could be due to inexperience.

Sometimes working with the code is difficult because I search for documentation about the code and how to work with the code, which is where I believe they should improve, by providing some documentation on how to work with the code.

I have been working with the WSO2 Identity Server for almost four years.

Although the open-source version has a few bugs in its initial release, I consider it to be stable, at the very least, the most recent version.

It's great because it works with Kubernetes and can be scaled.

In our organization, we have approximately 500 users who use this solution on a daily basis, primarily because we have some public sites that are linked to this.

Users create accounts and use them to log in.

In terms of technical support, I would rate them a four and a half out of five. They are responsive, helpful, and knowledgeable in solving tickets. They were able to help resolve our issues.

Positive

We are currently exploring products such as Apache Kafka and Apache Spark. Only in the laboratory. I am a project manager, and not working with it directly, but in our company, we started at the beginning of the year. We want to see how we can use it, but we don't have anything in production.

We have also been working with the WSO2 API Manager for the same amount of time, approximately four years.

It was very easy to configure and set up.

I would rate the installation a four out of five.

I don't have any pricing information.

At this time we are working with the open-source version. However, we are in negotiations with the WS02 Identity Server.

It's great, I would rate WSO2 Identity Server a nine out of ten.

We have multiple clients and we have been evaluating different solutions to meet their need requirements. One of our clients is in a security practice and we are evaluating this solution and Okta.

Some of the valuable features of the solution are the easy integration with processes, such as Single Sign-On. Overall WSO2 is straightforward and does not need customization.

This solution does not have BPM workflows already integrated, we had to integrate the BPM module externally. They do not provide full-featured auditing and certification modules out of the box.

In an upcoming release, they could improve the user interface by making it more user-friendly. Additionally, they have most of the connectors for the cloud version of the solution, but not on the on-premise or hybrid versions. We are left to come up with our own API-based connectors.

I have been using this solution for approximately two years.

In my experience, I have found this solution is best suited for small integrations.

The support we have received from WSO2 was very good and I would recommend the support.

I have found the solutions license is priced competitively compared to others.

I have evaluated Okta.

This solution is good for small organizations where they are looking for end-to-end infrastructure that is completely in the cloud. It is very good for Single Sign-On and deep provisioning.  Additionally, they also support different types of architecture integrations, such as on-premies. 

I would recommend it based on the cost, licensing, and integration.

I rate WSO2 Identity Server a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in retail. We have a customer that runs a retail chain. He uses all components of WSO2 including the Identity Server, API Manager, and Enterprise Integrator.

The Identity Server has been able to manage our complete user base with ease - including authorization and authentication. It's made things much easier.

The latest features are excellent. 

We especially like the passwordless technology. 

The product offers very nice customization capabilities. The product runs well out of the box, however, it's nice to be able to tweak things as we need to.

The security is very good.

It's very easy to implement everything.

The solution could improve its development from a user perspective.

In a development environment, from a developer's perspective, there are a few ways they could simplify things. To understand scenarios and develop solutions can take some time.

The product could use more documentation, especially around the setup.

If you take one microservice, and one microservice wants to interact with another microservice, there are communication glitches that are happening at this moment. Those kinds of things have to be resolved. 

The need to ensure they are keeping up with the latest advancements, and especially be cognizant of security.

There may be memory issues if you haven't properly configured the policies.

We've been using the solution for about a year or so. It may be a bit more than that.

The product is very mature and therefore quite stable. I haven't seen any issues with it. there aren't really bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The latest versions are quite stable.

Scalability is really something we watch out for - especially in relation to the number of cores. Not only with the WSO2 product, but any product that you take on now. The number of transactions depends on the core volume. You need to understand what processor and how much CPU you are using as well as how many cores and how much memory. That said, from a scalability perspective, it's my understanding that it is very easy to scale.

Technical support is typically very good. We have good on-the-ground technical support. 

There is also a robust open-source community where you can find a lot of your answers if you need to. The developer community is growing every day and continues to get better and better.

Recently, we had an issue with the database connector. When we used the SQL query, it couldn't connect to the database. We raised a case with technical support and they were able to resolve everything for us.

The initial setup is very straightforward, however, I'm concerned about the latest setups. For example, when you are doing the setup in the cloud-native environment side. It is not as straightforward. They need to come up with more documentation with respect to that.

Ideally, if it is an on-premise deployment or if the product administrator (or whoever doing the installation) is capable enough to do the installation, then it will take only two to three days to finalize. If somebody is not as familiar with the solution, then it will take about two weeks to set everything up.

I was able to handle the deployment myself. I did not need the assistance of a consultant or integrator.

While I can't really get into specifics, I can say our organization has seen a good ROI.

The pricing is very good. When you compare it to all other products, the pricing is cost-effective. It's not only that, it's as robust as other products and on par with other products - such as, for example, MuleSoft or TIBCO. In comparison, it's quite reasonable.

There aren't any extra costs above the standard licensing fees.

This is a very effective solution for small to medium-sized enterprises.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a really good product, from what I have seen so far.

This tool is a way for data centers to secure their connectivity. My primary use case for this product is to synchronize with the LDAP server, and allow single sign-on, role-based access.

We are able to use this tool to better secure next generation data centers, which use software defined networks. An example of this is the telecom industry. We will also be using it to develop e-commerce websites.

For us, the single sign-on access and the role-based permissions are the major requirement. These are the features that I find most valuable. 

I have two suggestions for improving the product. First, improvements have to been made in the high availability architecture. This has to do with the master-slave replication, and how the load balancing is handled between the identity servers. The way in which it is handled has to be improved.

My second suggestion has to do with LDAP synchronization.  Ideally, the agents should be simplified beyond what they are now.

I would rate the solution's stability eight or nine out of ten. It is not crashing or stopping anywhere. I'm not giving a score of ten because of the points for improvement that I mentioned.

The scalability is there. Currently we are able to support more than one hundred thousand users, and we are able to manage them using LDAP.

We have multiple projects where this solution is used. One of these projects has thirty internal users, and the external users are their customers. It is a huge customer base.

Another one of our projects has approximately one hundred users, which will be more than ten thousand customers.

Generally, there are two kinds of projects. The first I call "light", where the customers are the end users. This makes for a very large number of users. The second type of project is an operational team, where there are approximately one hundred users, or real-time operation team members. Their customers will total more than ten thousand.

We do have plans to increase our number of clients.

With our subscription, their technical support is really very good. There are a lot of documents available, but they are quite difficult to understand and deploy based on this alone.

Beyond evaluating a couple of other products, we did not use a different solution.

I found the initial setup to be easy. It was not complex.

The initial deployment will take two days, maximum, and two team members are sufficient to handle it. After the initial deployment, we had to do further customization on our website. This took us approximately two to three weeks.

We currently have a five member team for maintaining the solution. 

We deployed the solution ourselves.

We do recognize a return on our investment. However, because this is only one of the tools in our full solution, I cannot tell you exactly how much this component contributes.

Price matters to us, and the primary reason that we adopted this solution is that it is open source. This means that the actual product is free of cost; however, we do have a support licence that we can pay for by yearly subscription.

We do very well with this. We have to take their support, but that is a minimal charge if I'm comparing it to other identity managers.

Overall, the licensing is ok. If you are paying for support then you will be supported very well.

We evaluated a couple of other products before settling on this one. One of the solutions that we tried was CyberArk for privileged access management.

This is a really good, open source product.

I would suggest purchasing a subscription for technical support. It is a lightweight program, and the documentation is sufficient. However, there are specific features that you may want to use, and for this you may need full, in-depth support when it comes time to deploy.

Once you purchase the subscription, it is like a perpetual license. You can do everything yourself.

I would rate this product eight out of ten. Other than the small improvements that I have suggested, it is a very good solution.

My primary use case for this product is to evaluate identity solutions for our customers.  

Because I did not go on to adopt this solution, I can only say that it might be a good solution. The documentation and ecosystem were of high quality.

The feature that I found most valuable was the ecosystem. It is very comprehensive, and allowed me to find that components that I wanted to use. Other examples include the identity server and the API.

I found that the product was too large, and therefore difficult for people such as myself who only wanted to make use of a single function. I was interested in the identity server, alone.

I would like to see a simpler and faster installation and configuration process for making use of individual components.

Judging from the completeness of the ecosystem and the quality of the documentation, I feel that this might be a good product. I just did not have enough time and patience to fully evaluate it.

I found the initial setup to be very complex, which is the main problem that I encountered. I had expected to configure the system in one or two days, but it took longer than I expected.

For example, I was looking for a particular setup, and used LDAP as instructed. However, I could not find where to make use of the API. 

I did the implementation and testing of this solution myself. The testing and evaluation phase was approximately two weeks. 

This, in fact, was the product that I evaluated. I eventually moved on to the solution that I use now.

I tried the product but I found it very cumbersome, so I no longer use it. Time and simplicity were my primary concerns, so I moved on to a new solution.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.