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

Imanami GroupID vs Ping Identity Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 2, 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 Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
36th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
User Provisioning Software (17th), Active Directory Management (16th)
Ping Identity Platform
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (6th), Authentication Systems (9th), Data Governance (17th), Access Management (6th), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (3rd), Directory Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) category, the mindshare of Imanami GroupID is 0.9%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ping Identity Platform is 3.4%, down from 5.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Ping Identity Platform3.4%
Imanami GroupID0.9%
Other95.7%
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

GV
Senior application Security Engineer at OneDigital Health and Benefits
Shows group analytics with good UI but needs improvement in GPO
The solution helps with group analytics.  Imanami GroupID's UI is good.  The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO.  I have been using the solution for two years.  I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten.  I rate Imanami GroupID's scalability an eight out of…
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

"I have found the overall features to be useful."
"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."
"Imanami GroupID's UI is good."
"It's convenient for users to log in through Ping using the Kerberos adapter because it doesn't require them to authenticate again."
"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."
"I would recommend PingFederate as an IAM solution for its no-code environment, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, bidirectional services, and advanced features."
"The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app."
"This is a user-friendly solution."
"The product's most valuable features include its cloud-based capabilities for handling cloud applications and providing authentication and authorization through OIDC and SAML. It also supports integrations needed for both local and internal applications, including legacy applications requiring web server access."
"I find the auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications."
"PingFederate is a good product but there are limitations."
 

Cons

"The mobile application needs to be improved and there should be chatbox features to allow users to easily reach out for assistance."
"The product's implementation is complex. It should also work on GPO."
"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."
"In terms of licensing and implementation costs, it has premium pricing, and it has a very complex implementation."
"Ping Identity Platform is expensive."
"PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer."
"From the improvement perspective, they could bring IGA capability, which right now they only have in their SaaS offering."
"PingAccess can only have one token provider, and you cannot enable two different token providers simultaneously."
"PingID would benefit from a better user interface for integration."
"The product's community has certain shortcomings that require improvement."
"We have encountered instances where it is not easy to do authentication."
 

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."
"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."
"Ping Identity Platform is not very expensive."
"PingID's pricing is pretty competitive."
"Compared to some SaaS-based solutions, the platform is relatively cost-effective."
"The pricing is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"Ping offers flexible pricing that's not standardized."
"The tool is quite affordable."
"The platform's value justifies the pricing, especially considering its security features and scalability."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Media Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
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

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Grant Thornton LLP
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 Imanami GroupID vs. Ping Identity Platform and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.