Google Authenticator is a mobile authentication app.
N/A
IBM Security Verify
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
IBM Security Verify, formerly known as IBM Cloud Identity, is an identity-as-a-service (IDaaS) offering that aggregates dynamic user, device and environmental context to automate risk protection and continuously authenticate any user to any resource.
$1.71
per month per user
Pricing
Google Authenticator
IBM Security Verify
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Authenticator
IBM Security Verify
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
Optional
Additional Details
—
Sample Pricing Breakdown (NOTE: for competitive pricing per contract, please consult with your IBM Security Account Rep)
Users: 5,000
SSO* -- USD 1.71 per user per month
MFA* -- USD 1.71 per user per month
Adaptive Access* -- USD 1.71 per user per month
Lifecycle and provisioning** -- USD 2.01 per user per month
Identity analytics** -- USD 2.13 per user per month
* Single sign-on (SSO), multifactor authentication (MFA) and adaptive access pricing based on total active monthly users per use case. Costs decrease if users are active less than once per month.
** Lifecycle and provisioning and identity analytics pricing based on total users per use case.
IBM Security Verify stacks up with Microsoft Entra ID better than SecurID due to categories in common such as, Self Service password resets, Multi-Factor Authentication, User Provision and Governance Tools, SSO, and IAM. SecurID not so much because it doesn't have that full …
It is supported by virtually all cloud-based software applications for business. I am happy to allow users to use this in addition to other authenticators. Certainly, if your business is in the Google cloud it makes sense, but my approach to the remote/virtual work world these past couple of years has been structured flexibility. Leaving some choice up to the users for their own comfort, particularly when they are using their own devices. I cannot think of a scenario where it is less appropriate - perhaps where you run the risk of "app sprawl". I.e., where you are requiring users to handle multiple authenticators (which can happen with certain pieces of hardware) you may want to encourage consolidation into one to avoid frustration.
Verify protects our on-premises resources and some of our cloud-based ones, too. We've used SSO with several apps without issues. MFA was the main driver for us, and Verify was found to be a good fit for our needs, enabling our end users to access resources securely. This facility helped us build cyber assurance with our stakeholders.
I once performed a factory reset of my smartphone which had Google Authenticator. I didn't have a backup for the device. When I restored my phone with the same google account, I was not able to restore the authenticator app settings. I had to add all the keys back into the app to use it. This is cumbersome, but I understand it is set up this way for security reasons.
I don't like the ease with which it lets you delete a key. If I accidentally delete a key, I am doomed to get my 2FA key reset, unless I still have the QR code saved somewhere.
It works flawlessly, i have never faced any major issues with this. It has all the features such as Iam and security management. I think its a good investment and the benefits we reap from this software are worth the price.
I have not faced any technical challenge personally using this application. It's very lightweight and doesn't require many system resources on your mobile device.
While setup and implementation takes work and time, the flexibility and possibilities make up for that in the long run. This is not a product you can just install and run, but if you design and implement your ruleset well, it will save you a lot of work afterwards. Just make sure that the systems you want to use it for have an existing and proven connector.
It is almost always available. they do updates at night, minimizing the effect of upgrades. It is always around, it is just old and maybe needs to start from scratch to get a better product for nowadays. It is almost always available during business hours when you need it. for 24/7 companies it may be more difficult to time the upgrades so that it does not affect your work.
I have found Google’s support to be hit or miss. There are times when they are very responsive, and I get my issue resolved quickly, and there are times where a response from them takes weeks. There is no in-between. But my support experience with this particular product is nonexistent because I have not had a problem with it yet. Hopefully, we do not have any problems with it either.
The support team has always been the primary consultation base when we are faced by performance problems. From the deployment stage the team has managed to monitor the operation lifecycle and give best insights based on their observation. It works 24/7 to enhance productive service delivery to clients. The IBM Security Verify Support team has been the main player in the successful performance of this software.
We deploy Google Authenticator in residential and non-managed client scenarios. Google Authenticator can perform the basic functions needed for multi-factor authentication but lacks the more advanced features of solutions like Cisco's Secure Access by Duo. Google Authenticator is our go-to solution for anyone ready to increase their security but struggling to find the necessary technology budget.
We evaluated Oracle Identity Manager and were ready to move ahead with the purchase plan, but then found that IBM addressed the needs of our company in a more robust fashion. The price was significantly higher, yet in the grand scheme of things, the safety of both our data and the data of our clients was the most important criteria.
The licensing terms were favourable due to their flexibility based on the size and purpose of implementation. The billing frequency is done on quarterly basis. The vendor team has enacted best user policies that gives the company the full control of this platform. It is cost-effective as compared to most security verification tools in the market.
In the case of adjustments, we were often able to carry them out completely on our own and only used professional services for new requirements. Particularly in the case of access management, it is very positive that we usually needed IBM for a task in less than an hour and then developed the solution further on our own.
More secure data = less worried about a data breach.
Takes longer to log in, and if I don't have my phone then I have to go looking for it, so it really makes it so that you can't be without your phone, which in certain instances is annoying or not possible and can hold up work time.
Everyone is willing to use the same program because everyone likes Google—makes it easier to manage.
