Forefront Identity Manager (Discontinued) vs. Oracle Identity Governance

I think that MIM is great for compliance since it reduces the number of logins that are required by users. Most offices have post-it notes with logins floating around because there are so many to remember or there are "shared" logins. This reduces the number of logins to 1 and you can easily revoke access in one fell swoop. This prevents gaps and holes with terminations and updates to select groups are super simple.

Well suited for: 1. Large and medium organisations who have the capacity to invest in IAM roadmap for long term. 2. Organisations with and existing oracle and partner applications ecosystem. 3. Scenario where the user base is on the higher side and organisations looking to scale up in near future. 4. Organisation with complex workflow need in identity management process. Not well suited for 1. Small organisations or even medium ones which have a lesser number of applications 2. Scenarios where custom connectors need to be developed but at the same time turnaround should be quick. 3. Scenarios when features you are looking for are missing, getting them added could take a lot of effort. 4. UI is not very user-friendly and needs to be customised. 5. Takes time to stablise post going live

• Authentication
• Security
• Identity Management

• It has a very well-defined and scalable framework (LDAP directory).
• It scales particularly well, going from a basic platform to a complex one using customisation and extensions.
• It integrates well with other components like SSO and Access Manager to provide comprehensive a one stop identity management solution.

• For Windows Server 2008 R2 Servers is a great tool to set a codeless provisioning over new objects.
• Can easily integrate with Active Directory and Exchange Servers, improving the identity sync between the final user and the lifecycle management.
• Improvements in the areas of performance, simplified deployment easing the troubleshooting tasks, better documentation knowledge base, and more language support.
• The codeless provisioning provided in FIM can sustain a variety from high demand to mid-size scenarios for account lifecycle management.

• The cost could be lower.
• Support.
• Identity.

Overall good product and somewhat reliable when used in a specific manner. However, there are cons like unending bugs and no well-defined upgrade path. The product could have been more flexible and lite in terms of organisational infra needs. OIM is a robust product but other vendors are almost on-par now.

It is Microsoft. We are a Microsoft shop, primarily. It integrates deeply with Active Directory making it good for Microsoft Active Directory shops.

I was not involved in the purchasing decision, an enterprise architect who used Gartner as a source was influential

• We see a positive impact simply in the time savings alone. Chasing accounts around is time-consuming and prone to error.
• The cost to us is negligible to the value it provides.

• It has a great impact from moving us from paper based to full EHR Compliance
• It's easy to check and see how users get and lose access to the systems that are administered through OIM
• It's also helping in tying down Policies and procedures within the Orgainization