No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Atlan vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Atlan
Ranking in Data Governance
12th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Metadata Management (5th)
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Data Governance
17th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (6th), Authentication Systems (9th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (9th), Access Management (6th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (3rd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Data Governance category, the mindshare of Atlan is 1.8%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Governance Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Atlan1.8%
Ping Identity Platform0.9%
Other97.3%
Data Governance
 

Featured Reviews

Peter Neumann - PeerSpot reviewer
IT consultant at Pathfinder
Has struggled to meet business needs but supports technical data exploration and transparency
Atlan can be improved by concentrating more on business data since it is developed from developers for developers, and it needs to be more business relevant. For instance, when re-importing data model diagrams, Atlan provides some diagram automation that is not connected to the business glossary, which I consider a significant fault. Atlan needs to improve by focusing more on the business side of data, not only on technical aspects.If you want to focus on technical considerations, it would be beneficial to have an interface with a real business data modeling tool such as Erwin or other business data tools, since data modeling is not the same as Draw.io. Additionally, Atlan can improve its workflows, which are hard to understand. Working with templates, Excel import, export, and running automations is not self-explanatory, and you always need help from Atlan support team. If business people want to use it and run their own reports, it must be easier to customize for their business needs.
AmitRathod - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Analyst at Toll Holdings Limited
Single sign-on has simplified access while adaptive authentication protects complex user journeys
Regarding areas for improvement in Ping Identity Platform, there is not much. In terms of licensing and implementation costs, it has premium pricing, and it has a very complex implementation. It provides greater feasibility, but it takes a very long time in terms of complete building. There is a very limited number of legacy support, which can pose potential difficulties in integrating with certain older or legacy systems. Additionally, issue troubleshooting can be difficult at times. Sometimes issues can be difficult to diagnose and require extensive technical expertise. There is also a very steep learning curve for administrative purposes and potential difficulties with offline authentication scenarios.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The technical support services are good."
"Atlas is quite intuitive."
"Overall, I rate Atlan a nine out of ten."
"Atlan is helpful for identifying datasets and discovering PI data, such as the classification levels of datasets (gold, silver, bronze)."
"By switching to Atlan, we have increased our productivity and saved a lot of business time through automation."
"The AI part is integrated for enriching metadata engagement, making it a comprehensive tool."
"As a senior analytics engineer, Atlan's ability to show end-to-end data lineage is the most important feature for me."
"Overall, I rate Atlan as a ten out of ten."
"Ping Identity Platform demonstrates strong stability, as it is not prone to bugs, with the development team consistently fixing issues, making it highly recommended by many clients."
"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."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"The solution has a smooth and configurable user interface for single sign-on capabilities."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app."
"I work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
 

Cons

"One area that could be improved is the capability to find duplicates of datasets."
"One of the main areas for improvement is its governance capabilities. Atlan supports only basic out-of-the-box workflows, and it becomes challenging to customize features like how data owners should approve access to data assets."
"Working with templates, Excel import, export, and running automations is not self-explanatory, and you always need help from Atlan support team."
"One of the main areas for improvement is its governance capabilities."
"Customer support for Atlan is not so proactive."
"In my experience, it might be less suited for collaboration across teams."
"The challenge is in the lineage, where it requires improvement. Atlas needs to capture areas where organizations use less known applications."
"The product could be improved by offering scheduled email reports for managed assets."
"In Ping Identity, we have had some issues. We've worked with logging and troubleshooting, including some firewall and security issues."
"I have contacted the technical support team at PingFederate. I would rate their help as two out of ten."
"From the improvement perspective, they could bring IGA capability, which right now they only have in their SaaS offering."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"We can choose a drop-down to search for which certificate we have to create, which is difficult."
"Sometimes, there are issues with its stability."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"Ping Identity Platform is expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay per-user license. It's a different classification model than with other solutions, where they usually charge you for resources. So, that was a better model for us. And because of this difference in models or classification, it was cheaper for us to go with Atlan."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"The product is costly."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"PingID pricing is a ten out of ten because it's a little bit cheaper than other tools, such as Okta and ForgeRock, and supports multiple tools."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Governance solutions are best for your needs.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Insurance Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise22
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Atlan?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that the licensing cost is a bit flexible but not affordable for smaller organizations. It might be way out of their budget, but it is very ...
What needs improvement with Atlan?
Atlan can be improved by enhancing their support process by reducing the resolution time. They have really bad and incomplete documentation, so they should work on the documentation as well, especi...
What is your primary use case for Atlan?
My main use case for Atlan is to define a flexible set of metadata, including measuring the quality of said data. Atlan is also a partner of ours, so we use it to integrate with our own tool. It al...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingFederate?
Regarding pricing for Ping Identity Platform, I would rate it eight out of ten.
What needs improvement with PingAccess?
The areas where I think PingFederate needs room for improvement include that the most significant area I would recommend is that things such as redirects still do not have majority of the applicati...
What is your primary use case for PingAccess?
The main use case for PingFederate is that we are maintaining the centralized single sign-on with DuroSengel and Carabras as the two main instances to review. If any application is hosted outside o...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Equinix, Land O'Lakes, CDPHP, Box, International SOS, Opower, VSP, Chevron, Truist, Academy of Art University, Northern Air Cargo, Repsol
Find out what your peers are saying about Atlan vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
911,493 professionals have used our research since 2012.