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

Imanami GroupID vs OpenText Identity Manager comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

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
18th
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) (36th), Active Directory Management (16th)
OpenText Identity Manager
Ranking in User Provisioning Software
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
Identity Management (IM) (25th), Identity Governance Administration (IGA) (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the User Provisioning Software category, the mindshare of Imanami GroupID is 2.0%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Identity Manager is 3.4%, down from 3.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
User Provisioning Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Identity Manager3.4%
Imanami GroupID2.0%
Other94.6%
User Provisioning Software
 

Featured Reviews

Jonathan Cauthorn - PeerSpot reviewer
Identity and Access Management Manager at a insurance company with 201-500 employees
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.
GA
IDM Consultant at GCA Consultoria de Informática Ltda
Highly flexible with many connectors, offers excellent scalability
The initial deployment of the environment typically takes about a day to a day and a half to install and configure all the servers. Integrating applications can vary, with easy and well-documented integrations taking around 40 hours, while more complex ones may take up to 80 hours or more. However, integration with applications can vary in complexity, depending on their documentation and APIs. We prioritize integrations based on customer needs, starting with HR systems and adapting to their specific requirements for user configuration. Typically, a deployment team consists of up to four people, depending on project size, with expertise in operating systems and integration. For ongoing management and maintenance, at most two people are required to monitor servers, and integrations, and address any issues that arise.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"For each job code, we go through and determine the access they're supposed to have to the system, and based on that job code, we use the query tool so 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, which runs every night so that the next day everybody has the job codes they're supposed to have."
"It's a solid product, it's a mature product."
"The most valuable features are Password Reset Alerts, Password Sync, and SQL connectors."
"It's a very flexible tool, so you can synchronize multiple sources of data and you have multiple connections to various kinds of systems."
"The stability of the NetIQ Identity Manager is good."
"The Identity Engine is event-based and provides real-time synchronization and password synchronization to more than 40 different applications and services."
"Identity and access management processes have developed to become automatic and fast."
"NetIQ Identity Manager is by far the most flexible product available, and the pricing is incredibly good, even if you're not situated in the BeNeLux."
"The access request management has improved significantly in terms of its user interface. What sets it apart from competitors like SailPoint is that it's an event-based solution rather than schedule-based. That's a key differentiator."
 

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."
"User Application UI Product Licensing"
"The UI for requesting and approving rights have been a little outdated, however, in the most recent version that has been addressed."
"The integrations must be made easier."
"If it works, Designer is a charm, but it can be a pain to keep updated because of all the Java stuff that regularly goes wrong."
"Technical support is average. When it's come to complex issues, it takes longer than expected to solve."
"NetIQ Identity Manager could improve by updating the user portal, it is out of date."
"The solution architecture is somewhat complex. For some components, the necessary resilience is not inherent."
"The user facing interfaces are not too friendly and they are also fairly hard to configure."
 

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."
"You just need to be aware that the more systems you connect, the more license fees you have to pay."
"The price of the solution is a bit high and could be reduced."
"Micro Focus is flexible when it comes to price. The cost varies from customer to customer. There are no additional costs, though. Everything is included."
"It would easily help them in getting more market and more customers if more consultants knew about their software. If they could keep it free for schools for teaching purposes, it would be good. I had to pay myself to get it and use it for training. Their competitors are giving it for free. I had to pay for it myself. They are losing market to their competitors."
"The solution is quite affordable."
"I would rate the pricing a two out of ten, with one being low price and ten being high price. It is significantly more cost-effective than the major players in the market."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which User Provisioning Software solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
24%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Media Company
10%
Outsourcing Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise6
 

Also Known As

No data available
Novell Identity Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Grant Thornton LLP
Sheetz
Find out what your peers are saying about Imanami GroupID vs. OpenText Identity Manager and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.