We performed a comparison between PingFederate and Symantec Siteminder based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies."
"The most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"PingFederate is very flexible. We can do many customizations, and it also provides an SDK to tailor it to our specific requirements. There are also numerous plugins available. I've worked with tools like ForgeRock and Okta, but I find PingFederate to be the most customizable."
"We almost never have outages nor see slowdowns."
"Authentication & Authorization are important because all the sites need authentication for security purposes. That has been handled pretty well all these years with SSO."
"Ease of use is very good, for administrating it. It's very well known."
"It is reliable."
"It's agent-based. It's convenient to deploy and integrate."
"Right now, federation that comes out-of-the-box with single sign-on is the most valuable feature that we have, and also scalability."
"If you look at our organization, and really all financial institutions, we have a lot of legacy apps. So it really helps to get Single Sign-On."
"A valuable feature of Siteminder is the way it handles bulk traffic. The features it has, in terms of routing the traffic and load balancing, are good."
"Notifications and monitoring are two areas with shortcomings in the solution that need improvement."
"PingFederate's UI could be streamlined. They have recently made several improvements, but it's still too complex. It's a common complaint. The configuration should be simplified because the learning curve is too steep."
"It requires some expertise to set up and manage."
"Currently, the main integration is SAML-based, but other integration methodologies need to be supported."
"To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly."
"In future releases, I would like to see maybe more capabilities with some more modern authentication."
"We are finding some compatibility issues. We're still working with CA on them."
"The main thing is we do not have the traceability and good monitoring that CA can provide us to capture problems when they occur."
"CA has reporting at the moment. With the reporting, every particular segmented product has a reporting engine. I would like to see centralized reporting for all of them together."
"We're currently unable to find information about if the solution can do a full implementation with SQL. Some better and more accessible documentation for new users or those curious about the product would be helpful."
"Better documentation. I went through some sessions on single sign-on for version 12.7."
"The support could be faster."
PingFederate is ranked 10th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews while Symantec Siteminder is ranked 15th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 69 reviews. PingFederate is rated 8.2, while Symantec Siteminder is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of PingFederate writes " A highly stable tool offering extremely helpful technical support to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Siteminder writes "Easy to implement and customize and very stable". PingFederate is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, PingID, Microsoft Active Directory, CyberArk Identity and Red Hat Single Sign On, whereas Symantec Siteminder is most compared with ForgeRock, Okta Workforce Identity, PingAccess, PingID and Microsoft Entra ID. See our PingFederate vs. Symantec Siteminder report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.