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

Ping Identity Platform vs i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 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

i-Sprint AccessMatrix Unive...
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
27th
Ranking in Authentication Systems
28th
Ranking in Access Management
29th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
6th
Ranking in Authentication Systems
9th
Ranking in Access Management
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Data Governance (17th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (9th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (3rd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Authentication Systems category, the mindshare of i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management is 1.4%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 2.8%, down from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Authentication Systems Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Ping Identity Platform2.8%
i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management1.4%
Other95.8%
Authentication Systems
 

Featured Reviews

NO
CEO at ABILITY LIMITED
A stable and scalable solution with reasonable pricing
The solution has high support capability.  The tool needs to improve its cloud service capability.  I have been working with the solution for 15 years.  I would rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten.  I would rate the tool's scalability a ten out of ten since it is highly scalable. We…
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 product is quite good, and from my point of view, it can serve our requirements."
"The solution has high support capability."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is that they are open to connecting with any token. For example, a year ago, we were looking for a soft token, and we started to look for alternatives. They are open to connecting with any token that we looking for."
"The main reason why we use this product is to make sure that we can use our corporate account to log on to applications in the cloud, and from that perspective, it helps us in our account life-cycle management because if somebody is leaving the company, that account will be automatically deleted, which saves time."
"Personally, I appreciate Identity Orchestration the most about Ping Identity Platform, as with a simple drag-and-drop interface and the correct options we can build a complex and personalized process very efficiently and effectively for registration, login, and profile management."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"This is a user-friendly solution."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"It provides ease of connecting all our devices."
"I work on the application onboarding process because we have multiple customers and get data from different sources."
 

Cons

"The tool needs to improve its cloud capability."
"The user interface is not quite good and easy to use. There are a lot of menus, and the look and feel is not modern like a modern app."
"I have contacted the technical support team at PingFederate. I would rate their help as two out of ten."
"Ping Identity Platform must improve its UI since its management console is complicated."
"In Ping Identity, we have had some issues. We've worked with logging and troubleshooting, including some firewall and security issues."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"PingID classifies the type of environment into internal and external, which is an area for improvement because you need to take additional steps to trust internal and external users."
"They could enhance the product's device tracking for better zero-trust security would be beneficial. Currently, it tracks IPs well but lacks detailed device information, which is crucial from a security standpoint."
"The product's community has certain shortcomings that require improvement."
"It has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten. The tool's licensing is monthly."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"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."
"The product is costly."
"Ping Identity Platform is not an expensive solution."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Authentication Systems solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
26%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
University
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business12
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise22
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

AccessMatrix Universal Access Management
Ping Identity (ID), PingFederate, PingAccess, PingOne, PingDataGovernance, PingDirectory, OpenDJ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IRAS, Singapore Bank
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 Ping Identity Platform vs. i-Sprint AccessMatrix Universal Access Management and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.