Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Imanami GroupID vs One Identity Active Roles comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 9, 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

Imanami GroupID
Ranking in User Provisioning Software
11th
Ranking in Active Directory Management
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (25th)
One Identity Active Roles
Ranking in User Provisioning Software
5th
Ranking in Active Directory Management
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the User Provisioning Software category, the mindshare of Imanami GroupID is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of One Identity Active Roles is 4.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
User Provisioning Software
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Cauthorn - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies the task of managing groups and is affordable and easy to implement
I'd like to see it be able to do more than just groups. I'd like it to be able to do some things with email distribution lists as well. It can do that, but there were a few things that were limiting. It was difficult to get it set up, particularly with Azure in the cloud. I'd like that to be a little bit smoother. I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools. We've got a ton of groups, and it does take quite a while to do nightly processing. This is something that definitely needs improvement.
Neera Jain - PeerSpot reviewer
Requires minimal training and provides granular control
The granular control has been very helpful for us. We want to be able to control what level users have access to. It is possible to control access levels at the organizational unit or even the attribute level, making it helpful for us. Active Roles helped increase operational efficiency in our organization. We have delegated user provisioning to the help desk so they can create users or manage accounts. We have delegated group management to identified group owners who can manage their groups. Some of them just need read-only access to AD; they do not need to download the native tools. They can just do it via a browser. Active Roles has helped our organization reduce the number of erroneous privileged accounts. We have set the templates, and we have set the standards. It helps standardize all the naming conventions and how they are provisioned with the rules. That is definitely very helpful. We use the change history to see who might have modified what object. We have that tracking, but we use a tool from Quest called Change Auditor that can do the auditing to figure out who did what type of thing for auditing.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system. Based on that job code, we use the query tool and say that anybody who is in this job code gets these groups added to them, or conversely, if they change job codes, it removes the ones that they shouldn't have and adds the one they should. That runs every night, and the next day, everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"It is very intuitive and close to the native tools. Since it is web-based, it does not require extensive training for our end users."
"Another good feature is the change history. It's centralized in a single place and allows us to manage people's Active Directory domains from a central location. We can also drill down into individual objects in a troubleshooting or even an auditing situation. We can show evidence to auditors by drilling down into the individual history. It gives you all the history of what happened around an individual object. That is something that would be almost impossible to do in Active Directory, or extremely complicated."
"It has helped increase operational efficiency in our organization."
"In comparison to native Active Directory tools, using Active Roles for delegation is so much better. It uses an access template and that makes it easy to see who can access what. In fact, you can do that for many objects as well."
"Active Roles improved the management of users, groups, and AD objects in the organization."
"The AD and AAD management features of this solution are really good... They offer added value by showing more fields such as password age and the statuses of some things that we normally wouldn't see."
"It is an easier way for me to manage Active Directory with more advanced features."
"Because of Active Roles, we're able to synchronize on an even more regular basis. It enables us to provide even more information to the Active Directory, which helped us to group our users in a more consistent manner."
 

Cons

"The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO."
"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"I'd like to see a better user interface. It works, but it is clunky. There should be better import and export of LDAP queries and better management tools."
"The initial setup was quite easy, but it was time-consuming. It took about three months."
"There are some features that we think should be included in their next release. We think these things would take them to the next level: the ability to completely force or limit any dynamic group processing to specific servers, change-tracking reporting of virtual attributes, and the ability to use files as inputs to automation workloads. These things have also been talked about. Knowing them, they're probably working on them."
"For ActiveRoles, it would be good if the product supports multi-scripting language. You can use only VBScript."
"The user and group management in Azure AD could be better. Our focus these days is dynamic sharing with several on-prem Microsoft applications like SharePoint."
"There is always room to improve the user interface for increased clarity. I believe enhancements to the console are also necessary because it is more confusing than the web interface."
"In terms of improvement, it could be made even more user-friendly for administrators when they need to create new workflows and rule sets."
"It's a fairly stable product but not perfectly reliable."
"Active Roles could add more options for web customization. Our requirements are exceedingly specific. We'd like to get the web interface down to just five buttons, but in some cases, we can only get to six. The web interface in the current version is less customizable than in the previous one."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is on a yearly basis, and it has the product license fee and the support for it. So, there is the licensing fee, and there is the annual maintenance that includes the support. I don't remember exactly, but we're probably paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000 for it per year. We've got a pretty large implementation of it, and for the amount that we do, it is a pretty good deal. I would rate it a four out of five in terms of pricing."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"It's expensive."
"The price is reasonable. It costs us about 1 million Danish kroner annually, and we also spend about half as much on consultants."
"The pricing is high. I have not been involved with the renewal or cost aspect, but I know it is not cheap by any means. However, it is very useful for our environment."
"The licensing model is a simple user-based model, not that much complicated."
"The pricing is on the higher end."
"The pricing for Active Roles is expensive but not as expensive as other solutions like Okta."
"It's fairly priced."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which User Provisioning Software solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
Healthcare Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Imanami GroupID?
The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO.
What advice do you have for others considering Imanami GroupID?
The notifications, approvals and emails are very smooth in Imanami GroupID. I rate it an eight out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Active Roles?
The pricing is high. I have not been involved with the renewal or cost aspect, but I know it is not cheap by any means. However, it is very useful for our environment.
What needs improvement with One Identity Active Roles?
There is always room to improve the user interface for increased clarity. I believe enhancements to the console are also necessary because it is more confusing than the web interface.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Quest Active Roles
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Grant Thornton LLP
City of Frankfurt, Moore Public Schools, George Washington University, Transavia Airlines, Howard County, MD. See all stories at OneIdentity.com/casestudies
Find out what your peers are saying about Imanami GroupID vs. One Identity Active Roles and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.