Ping Identity Platform Reviews

I am a consultant and this is one of the solutions that I implement for my clients.

It is used for the federation integration of the whole organization.

The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication.

Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported.

There are challenges when it comes to setting up this solution for external IP usage.

I have been using PingFederate for about a year.

It is a stable solution.

PingFederate is scalable. My customers are enterprise-level organizations with more than 1,000 users.

Technical support for PingFederate is fine.

I have experience with Keycloak, which I find to be a comparable solution. I think that the big difference between them is the multifactor aspect.

The initial setup is ok. I would say that it is manageable.

PingFederate is a good product but there are limitations. It is a good solution especially if it's an internal IP usage customer. For external customers, they do have challenges, although there are solutions for that available, as well.

Overall, it is a good product with some integration limitations.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for access to cloud applications.

The support for multi-factor authentication from different sources is the solution's most valuable feature.

The solution should allow for better integration with other platforms and the UBT.

The solution needs to offer stronger support for the password-less authentication.

I've been using the solution for less than a year.

The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches.

The scalability is good. It's been able to provide us with enough scalability for our needs. We have about 100 users on the solution currently. 

We've been in touch with technical support and have been satisfied with their services so far.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Our team handled the deployment internally.

We pay a licensing fee to Ping on a yearly basis. We don't have to pay an extra fee for technical support.

Before choosing Ping, we evaluated Okta.

We use a hybrid deployment model and are using the latest version of Ping.

It's being used quite extensively in our organization, although I'm unsure as to if we have plans to increase usage.

If someone is looking for a solution that works both for on-prem or hybrid, I strongly recommend opting for the cloud. It's a simple implementation and the solution is quite interesting. There are a lot of integrations. The on-prem is not very easy to implement in comparison to the cloud but it's very good, and, for organizations with on-premise requirements, it's bound to be one of the top choices.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as software for some of the applications.

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. From that perspective, it helps us in our account life-cycle management. If somebody is leaving the company, for example, that account will be automatically deleted, which saves time.

The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering.

If the solution is going to compete with Microsoft, they need to offer more unique functionality to keep their current user base.

The administrative aspects of the solution could be more granular.

I've been using the solution since 2015.

The solution is stable. The main thing we had in the past was data center issues before we migrated to MES, but the product itself is very stable.

The scalability of the product could be improved, especially in terms of configuration. We have about 140,000 users on the solution. Everyone in the company is currently using it.

Technical support is good. There has been no negative feedback from my team.

We previously used a solution called Sidewinder. We switched because we felt this solution was technically better.

The solution's initial setup has a moderate level of difficulty. Coming from another solution, we had a bit of a challenge making applications compatible. Full deployment took one year as we had to migrate our many applications.

We managed the setup ourselves, with the assistance of a system integrator. They were very helpful and did a good job.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

I'd warn that a company integrating the solution should keep in mind that if they have a lot of applications, the implementation will get complex.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

My primary use case is for mobile one-time passwords and identity solution. Multi-factor authentification.

It gets a mobility portal in place in conjunction with Office 365. It provides very good possibilities and it's much better than other technology that we have used before which was unstable and slower. 

Multi-factor authentification is the feature that is the most valuable because it allows me to securely connect to my enterprises or mobile device from anywhere.

They should promote more buyer's authentification, like a fingerprint or face recognition, something that's more convenient.

They could use some bio-certification. It's just more user-friendly and more convenient than entering the one time passes. That would be an improvement.

It is stable.

It is scalable because now there are several thousand users already using it in our company. We have around 5,000 users using this solution. 

We switched to Ping because it's more stable. It supports many platforms and devices for example, three devices are included in the license. In one instance I can use the laptop for example, mobile, and the iPad.

The initial setup was very easy. It took five minutes including downloading from the Google App store. You link it with your code and that's it.

I would advise focussing on one solution because we do not use other solutions. This solution has functionalities that are enough so I would recommend to focus on one, and not try to integrate other solutions because it increases cost.

I would rate it a nine out of ten.

The auto-discovery feature the most valuable. It helps us automate a lot of things using a single password across applications. 

The legacy applications remain an issue. There also is a tendency for downtime and network issues. Also, it has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution.

It is a straightforward setup, but we did have some debugging issues.