We performed a comparison between RSA Adaptive Authentication and RSA Authentication Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Authentication Systems solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The capability to manage your business policy related to security when required without vendor involvement."
"Risk Engine’s risk score, eFN, GeoIP, and device binding all coming together in the Policy Rules to decide when to escalate to MFA."
"Ingestion of logs and raising alert space on those logs are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature is the stock tokens. That works the best for us."
"Our customer are seeing value from the product, as they experience cost reductions. They can stop fraud from their customers, then their customers can have a better experience from their services."
"I have found RSA Authentication Manager to be scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the SecurID."
"It is a good solution for token identification."
"It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the provision part. The mapping and the logging is also very good. In addition, the troubleshooting, from a console point of view, is easy for administration and on the provisioning and logging part."
"Easy setup, deployment, and integration in different infrastructures, including virtual ones."
"It stands out as a comprehensive and adaptable solution that excels in both on-premises and cloud-based authentication, offers strong security with multi-layered authentication, and boasts a well-maintained product with reliable performance."
"Better filters when searching for events. The current features for current filters when searching fraud events are not very comprehensive. You can only filter by certain fields in the transaction."
"It has taken years to implement."
"RSA Adaptive Authentication lacks a mechanism to verify the identity of a new user in the Enrollment event workflow."
"I would like to see a more adaptive type of solution, something that we could use on our web pages..."
"The product is basically unusable. We need better ease of use; it's overly complicated."
"Reporting modules is one of the major areas that can be improved further."
"We have encountered issue when trying to expand this particular solution for a large set of users across the country."
"There is room for improvement in the RSA support."
"Our major problem is the authentication via Microsoft, via Microsoft cloud systems. This is our major aim, to be a valued product for the future. The biggest problem is to work against cheap cloud systems. Cloud identification is our main problem at this time."
"We are not planning on using the solution in the future."
"We found technical support was not very responsive to our requests for assistance."
"Enhancing the user interface and expanding their marketing efforts in regions like Nigeria and West Africa could be beneficial."
"Perhaps parts of the the user interface should become more intuitive."
Earn 20 points
RSA Adaptive Authentication is ranked 25th in Authentication Systems while RSA Authentication Manager is ranked 13th in Authentication Systems with 10 reviews. RSA Adaptive Authentication is rated 6.8, while RSA Authentication Manager is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of RSA Adaptive Authentication writes "It stops fraud in banks and reduces their costs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Authentication Manager writes "A highly effective and versatile solution that excels in terms of security, integration, scalability, and customer support". RSA Adaptive Authentication is most compared with ThreatMetrix, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and IBM Trusteer, whereas RSA Authentication Manager is most compared with Cisco Duo, Microsoft Entra ID, RSA SecurID, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Thales Authenticators. See our RSA Adaptive Authentication vs. RSA Authentication Manager report.
See our list of best Authentication Systems vendors.
We monitor all Authentication Systems 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.
