We use the product to run different reports.

We have encountered instances where it is not easy to do authentication.

I have been using the product for two years.

I would rate the tool's stability a ten out of ten.

My company has 1000 users for the product.

My experience with the support team is good.

The product's setup is easy if you have all the information and support.

I would rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use PingID for multifactor authentication, passwordless login, and push notifications.

I like the self-service feature. The 502 and UBP systems are also excellent. PingID's ability to authenticate with SSH, RDP, and Windows login is pretty handy. It covers the entire spectrum of use.

PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature.

We have used PingID for five years.

Early on, there were many changes to PingID because the company was trying to address some security vulnerabilities, but we only faced outages twice in three years due to these updates. It's fairly stable overall.

PingID's scalability is good. We haven't had any issues, but we don't have a huge amount of traffic. My organization has around 150,000 users.

We've had issues with incorrect reporting and needed to contact support. Reports were missing values, or the details weren't clear. We had a quick resolution 80 percent of the time.

I rate PingID seven out of 10 for ease of setup. It takes less than a day to deploy in one environment. It's a cloud-based solution, so you only need to set up an account and link it to your on-prem environment using an adapter.

I rate PingID eight out of 10. I would recommend it depending on the use case. You need to clarify your requirements before implementing the solution.

We primarily use PingFederate for access management authentication. It is mainly for authenticating employees, but we sometimes use it to authenticate customer applications.

PingFederate gives you granular control over the settings. There are many options for fine-tuning policies.

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.

PingFederate is stable.

PingFederate is an efficient solution, but the scalability depends on the environment. It's an on-prem solution, so it depends on the number of servers we have. We have around 150,000 users.

Deploying PingFederate is straightforward. The deployment time depends on the size of your environment and the things you need to do to get it working, such as configuring the server and the firewall rules. Installing it is simple, but you might need to spend a week configuring it to work in your environment.

I rate PingFederate eight out of 10.

From a user perspective, if you need to get into our VPN or virtual private network, which is for remote people, there is protected data behind a vault.

And if you need access to the vault, you must use a multi-factor and PingID. Additionally, vicariously, people have to use multi-factor to get into applications. The final aim is to get into laptops and desktops, and you have to use Multi-factor to restart or unlock your PC. You have to use multi-factor. The way that we do multi-factor here is we give the users a choice of using a phone or a Ubiquiti as to something they have.

So after they type in their password and username, they're prompted for a device that they have registered, and they have their choice of a phone or a Ubiquiti, or both.

I wonder if there are multi factors in improving. It's always a deterrent to productivity, naturally. Since I've been on this journey for three years, I've seen the product improve in the sense that it's less impact on productivity. In the beginning days, we had challenges with paying, finding the network, and signing its back-end service in the cloud. However, that's been drastically improved over the years.

The other thing we did was allow users to manage their device profiles. So they can either go in and register on Ubiquiti or a phone directly with the user interface now or web interface, and they can also set their default device which they want to use. So they, like Ubiqui working with PingID, tend to be the default of choice. So they set their Ubiquiti to the default device. And then whenever MFA is prompted, they have the Ubiquiti or default device. So that was a great improvement. And the way we implemented PingID, it's the same user interface regardless if you're getting into VPN, the vault applications, or a laptop or desktop.

So it's the same user interface to manage profiles centrally on a server. Hence if they change it for one use case, they change it for another.

It's the device management portal where users can manage it themselves. So before that, they'd have to call IT support to rearrange their default device in the profile, but now they can do it themselves.

PingID is feature rich. We've prototyped some of their step-up authentications. In certain circumstances, like geofencing, they can waive the MFA requirement because they're in a trusted area that's physically secured. We've prototyped that but have not rolled anything like that out. So, the aforementioned details can be considered for future improvements and changes in the product.

I have been using the solution for over three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. I've never really had problems where it's going down in one region. Well, even if it does, I don't notice it because the failover is working. 43,000 users are using the solution.

I would say the scalability is an eight or a nine.

The technical support team is good. We have some enhancement requests for them, and I think our people have a weekly call with them where they bring things up. They notify us of security vulnerabilities.

In the beginning, the initial setup was very complex. We had to ensure it was always available so there was a fail over. We had to have a mirror environment. It was complex in the early days three years ago, but it's matured quite a bit over the past three years. The solution is deployed on the cloud.

I see an ROI. It's not a revenue generator. So it's purely from a cost perspective, but on the other hand, because we protect so much of our data now through multi-factor, I don't know the statistics of how many times we've been hacked or passwords were stolen. But because we have done that, we've probably saved ourselves a lot of money in reputational damage in breach recovering from breaches.

On the technology stack we're currently using, we're exploring other technologies based on our platform and it includes many of our products. But we may explore other technologies to make it more seamless. But PingID is going to stay. We want to use something like biometrics to make it easier for shop floor workers. But if anything, I need an expansion of PingID.

It's a good, stable product, and they've served our needs very well. They've been very responsive, and the product is scalable. It's pretty robust. The desktop is customized to what we do here at GE, but they work a bit with us on it. So it's an excellent product.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app. However, they have good support towards MFAs, SSO, and other authentication methods that are either already included in the current plan or made available with a minor upgrade.

PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer. I suggested this improvement directly to the sales manager, who was friendly enough to take that feedback.

PingID is a reputed solution. I was already aware of PingID because we used PingID as a solution for all our login functionalities in my previous company. When I had an opportunity to add these capabilities to my new organization, PingID was one of my first choices. It's not because I'm biased but because I already knew the solution was scalable.

The solution architect and the sales managers gave the initial support. PingID's support portal is confusing, and it took a couple of back-and-forths to get some support from the support folks. However, the account manager did help us with the support questions by putting us in touch directly with some of the engineers. I rate PingID an eight and a half out of ten for customer support.

PingID’s initial setup was pretty straightforward.

The initial deployment with POC took about a month, and the actual production deployment took about a couple of weeks, maybe around four weeks or so. About four engineers, including a tech architect, were involved in the solution's deployment.

PingID's pricing is pretty competitive.

PingID's team was pretty good. We were trying to build a solution and wanted to deploy it for only a couple of hundreds of customers. We didn't want to sign up for a 1,500 or 5,000 feet plan. PingID was pretty understanding about our needs and provided us with great plans for the smallest fee they could provide. We had good negotiations with them, and they were pretty friendly. PingID provided all the required technical support even before we signed up. The sales manager ensured he supported me throughout the process, and we signed a deal with PingID.

Overall, I rate PingID an eight and a half out of ten.