Ping Identity vs Curity.
Last verified 2026-05-07
When Ping Identity wins
- Ping Identity has fine-grained authorization (Zanzibar-style); Curity does not
- Ping Identity has compliance: iso 27018; Curity does not
- Ping Identity has user mgmt: progressive profiling; Curity does partially
- Ping Identity has bot detection; Curity does not
- Ping Identity has security: anomaly detection; Curity does partially
When Curity wins
- Curity has local emulator for development; Ping Identity does not
- Curity has security: post quantum roadmap; Ping Identity does partially
Both win
- Both support WebAuthn passkeys natively
- Both support social login at scale
- Both have SOC 2 Type II
Pricing comparison
| MAU band | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| 10,000 MAU | Quote | Quote |
| 100,000 MAU | $6,000/mo | $4,500/mo |
| 500,000 MAU | $18,000/mo | $14,000/mo |
| 1,000,000 MAU | $30,000/mo | $25,000/mo |
Developer experience & lock-in
Editorial 1–5 scores and migration effort, on the same axes for both. Lower migration effort is better (easier to adopt, less lock-in).
| Signal | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| DX overallDeveloper experience | 3/5 | 4/5✓ |
| Docs qualityDocumentation | 4/5 | 5/5✓ |
| Passkey orchestrationPasskey / WebAuthn depth | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Adoption effortMigrating in | Hard | Involved✓ |
| Lock-in (exit effort)Migrating out | Hard | Involved✓ |
Enterprise readiness
Computed across the enterprise pillars from the capability matrix. See the enterprise-ready pillars.
| Pillar | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | Enterprise-ready · 100 | Enterprise-ready · 99 |
| Enterprise SSO | 100 | 100 |
| Directory sync (SCIM) | 100 | 100 |
| Organizations & tenancy | 100 | 100 |
| RBAC & custom roles | 100 | 100 |
| Audit logs & streaming | 100 | 100 |
| Compliance certifications | 100 | 100 |
| Security posture | 100✓ | 85 |
Side-by-side capability matrix
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Password authentication | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Social login | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Magic links | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| SMS OTP | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Email OTP | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| TOTP (authenticator app) | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Push MFA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| WebAuthn / passkeys | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Biometric | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Hardware security keys | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| SAML SSO | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| OIDC SSO | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| OAuth 2.0 SSO | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Enterprise federation | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Passwordless-only flows | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Adaptive MFA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Step-up auth | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| RBAC | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ABAC | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ReBAC | ~ Partial | ✕ No |
| FGA engine | ✓ Yes | ✕ No |
| API authorization | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Fine-grained permissions | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Self-service registration | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Progressive profiling | ✓ Yes | ~ Partial |
| Self-service account | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Bulk user import | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Admin user search | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Custom user metadata | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Organizations / tenants | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Multi-tenancy | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| SCIM provisioning | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| REST API | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| GraphQL API | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| SDKs | 10 listed | 6 listed |
| CLI | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Terraform provider | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Local emulator | ✕ No | ✓ Yes |
| Extension model | DaVinci flow orchestration + custom node SDK | Plugins (Java) + Configuration as Code (XML / CLI) |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Bot detection | ✓ Yes | ✕ No |
| Breached password detection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Brute-force protection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Anomaly detection | ✓ Yes | ~ Partial |
| Log streams | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Audit logs | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| GDPR data export | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| PII minimization | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Post-quantum roadmap | ~ Partial | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| MCP support | ~ Partial | ~ Partial |
| OAuth 2.1 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Dynamic client registration | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Agent vs human token separation | ~ Partial | ~ Partial |
| Web Bot Auth | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type II | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ISO 27001 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ISO 27018 | ✓ Yes | ✕ No |
| HIPAA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| PCI DSS | Level 1 | ✕ No |
| GDPR | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| CCPA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| FedRAMP | High | ✕ No |
| EU data residency | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Consent management | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Preference center | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Purpose-specific consent | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Integrates with CMPs | 2 listed | n/a |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-region deployment | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Data residency control | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Proven at high scale (1M+ MAU) | ✓ Yes | ~ Partial |
| Capability | Ping Identity | Curity |
|---|---|---|
| Password-hash import | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Lazy / just-in-time migration | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Account linking & dedup | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Custom domains per brand | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Per-brand theming of all flows | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Per-brand consent partitioning | ~ Partial | ~ Partial |
| Deletion webhooks / cascade | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Event streaming / webhooks | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Documented rate limits | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
FAQ
- How does Ping Identity compare to Curity on pricing?
- Ping Identity prices on tiered-mau; Curity prices on tiered-mau. See the pricing comparison table on this page for our editorial estimates at 10k / 100k / 500k / 1M MAU using the standard methodology assumptions.
- Should I switch from Ping Identity to Curity?
- Switching is a 60–90 day exercise in either direction once SDK rewrites and hooks/Actions migration are accounted for. If your team is hitting cost or feature ceilings on Ping Identity, evaluate Curity on the specific axes flagged in the "When Curity wins" list. If you're operating well within Ping Identity, the switching cost rarely pays back.
- Do Ping Identity and Curity both support passkeys?
- Both Ping Identity and Curity support WebAuthn passkeys natively per public documentation. Adoption rates depend on orchestration quality (device-aware prompting, conditional UI), not raw protocol support, see the passwordless guide for the orchestration question.
This comparison is auto-generated from the underlying capability matrix and pricing data on each vendor's profile. Editorial verdict lists below are seeded heuristically from the matrix diff; a maintainer review refines them before the page goes public.