Opal is a security platform that enables organizations to scale process.
N/A
PingOne from Ping Identity
Score 5.4 out of 10
N/A
The PingOne Cloud Platform from Ping Identity in Denver, Colorado is an identity management and access solution (IAM) for enterprises. Features of the products include single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, user management with directory, provisioning and deprovisioning. The solution is presented as a comprehensive, standards-based platform that allows users and devices to securely access any service, application or API from any device. Designed for hybrid IT environments, it can be…
$20,000
per year
Pricing
Opal.dev
PingOne from Ping Identity
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Essential
$20,000
per year
Plus
$40,000
per year
Premium
Contact Sales
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Opal.dev
PingOne from Ping Identity
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Contact vendor for pricing information.
Try PingOne for Customers for free. Sign up for a free 30-day trial of PingOne for customers.
This solution is selected before my time so, not much influence ,but product allow to customized and require decent ping skills to configure the solution. Okta and Other solutions are well suited in this category with some positive and some negative capabilities. it must say …
We tested PingOne but our security team was not happy with it (because of cloud exposure). We tested PingId as well but our security team was not happy with it (because of cloud exposure). We [spent] some time on PingDataGovernance but so far we don't have any use case for this …
All contenders were capable, but we had scale concerns with NetIQ's architecture. In the end, what set Ping apart from the others was their level of engagement in understanding our use cases up front during the RFP stage and how they were focused on what we needed more than …
I found both platforms compelling from an ease of use and user experience perspective. The decider for me was cost driven as I had already used Ping to drive a self-service transformation in a prior organization, and I intended to do the same at this one. Okta had issues with …
Two-way authentication and ease of use. I've used several applications that just email a link but never ask for a verification code. By entering the verification code you are sure that the site is safe, secured, and reliable. Using Ping, we can ensure no one other than you will …
I am frustrated that my organization chose to adopt Opal for our access management tool. It is extremely difficult to use, due to bugs and basic functionality missing. Engineers are not given write access to production resources, so every change must flow through Opal.
This involves writing an IAM policy by hand for every request, because it is far too difficult to find an existing role in the system, and requests must the narrowly tailored only to allow the exact operation requested. Opal makes this process much more difficult because it lacks basic functionality for end users, such as: -Ability to modify an existing IAM role
-Ability to view existing IAM roles
-Ability to delete duplicate Opal roles
-Lack of IAM role templates
-Poor error messages when attempting JSON policy fails validation
In general, each Opal request takes 5-10 minutes because you need to be very explicit with every API action you are requesting, which then needs to be repeated multiple times because it is very hard to get everything correct the first time, which then requires a new round of reviews. This is partially because AWS IAM roles can be tricky to get right, but Opal provides no functionality to make this easier.
The products we're using work well and are reliable. We've had very few outages, and when we have, their support team has been highly responsive and addressed the issues quickly. They are very customer focused and have been great partners throughout the relationship. I'm looking to adopt more of their technologies over the coming year.
PingFederate is feature-rich, and quickly updated with the latest standards and profiles. This gives us more tools to apply identity standards to modern business challenges.
PingFederate and PingCentral were also easy to deploy within docker containers and weave into an infra-as-code deployment, keeping operational overhead low.
PingID has an array of supported authenticators for nearly every use case, and early FIDO2 support has us looking into moving to passwordless much more quickly than I had anticipated.
Easy to use; all UI's are user friendly and easy to learn.[The] possibility to use API is [a] big value as well. We really like integration with CyberArk; with it we can manage privileged accounts according to company standards without breaking any rules, and we can be 100% sure that only approved persons will have administrative access.
For our enterprise, they've assigned a customer success manager to ensure our needs are being addressed, and that person is top notch in knowing our priorities, enhancement requests, and open cases. Every time we've needed to engage support for a problem or a how-to question, they've been highly responsive and followed up with us to ensure the case was completely resolved. Their support personnel are highly skilled and trained. This is a very customer-centric company.
We tested PingOne but our security team was not happy with it (because of cloud exposure). We tested PingId as well but our security team was not happy with it (because of cloud exposure). We [spent] some time on PingDataGovernance but so far we don't have any use case for this product. We started exploration for PingDataSync (to synchronize two different LDAP directories), [and] so far it looks promising.
