Ping Identity vs ForgeRock.
Last verified 2026-08-19
When Ping Identity wins
- The default new-logo path: PingOne plus DaVinci, without betting on ForgeRock roadmap convergence
- Terraform provider is first-class; ForgeRock's is partial
- Ping FGA / fine-grained authorization that ForgeRock does not match as a native engine
- Clearer commercial packaging for cloud-first buyers, even if pricing is still quote-only
When ForgeRock wins
- Authentication Trees and custom Java auth nodes, the deepest on-prem customization in this index
- Installed-base continuity if you already run ForgeRock Access Management
- Tighter identity-governance pairing when the IGA investment is already ForgeRock
- The conservative choice for public-sector estates that certified the ForgeRock stack, not PingOne
Both win
- Same parent, same private-equity owner, same quote-only commercial motion
- Both support WebAuthn passkeys natively and score 4/5 on orchestration
- Both have FedRAMP High, PCI Level 1, HIPAA, and SOC 2 Type II
- Both score 5/5 inbound and outbound migration difficulty. Leaving either is a program, not a sprint.
Pricing comparison
| MAU band | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| 10,000 MAU | Quote | Quote |
| 100,000 MAU | $6,000/mo | $8,000/mo |
| 500,000 MAU | $18,000/mo | $22,000/mo |
| 1,000,000 MAU | $30,000/mo | $38,000/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 | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| DX overallDeveloper experience | 3/5 | 3/5 |
| Docs qualityDocumentation | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Passkey orchestrationPasskey / WebAuthn depth | 4/5 | 4/5 |
| Adoption effortMigrating in | Hard | Hard |
| Lock-in (exit effort)Migrating out | Hard | Hard |
Enterprise readiness
Computed across the enterprise pillars from the capability matrix. See the enterprise-ready pillars.
| Pillar | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | Enterprise-ready · 100 | Enterprise-ready · 100 |
| 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 | 100 |
Side-by-side capability matrix
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| Self-service registration | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Progressive profiling | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| 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 | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| REST API | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| GraphQL API | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| SDKs | 10 listed | 10 listed |
| CLI | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Terraform provider | ✓ Yes | ~ Partial |
| Local emulator | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Extension model | DaVinci flow orchestration + custom node SDK | Authentication Trees + custom auth nodes (Java) + scripted nodes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| Bot detection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Breached password detection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Brute-force protection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Anomaly detection | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Log streams | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Audit logs | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| GDPR data export | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| PII minimization | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Post-quantum roadmap | ~ Partial | ~ Partial |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| MCP support | ~ Partial | ✕ No |
| OAuth 2.1 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Dynamic client registration | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Agent vs human token separation | ~ Partial | ✕ No |
| Web Bot Auth | ✕ No | ✕ No |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type II | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ISO 27001 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| ISO 27018 | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| HIPAA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| PCI DSS | Level 1 | Level 1 |
| GDPR | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| CCPA | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| FedRAMP | High | High |
| EU data residency | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| Consent management | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Preference center | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Purpose-specific consent | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Integrates with CMPs | 2 listed | 2 listed |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-region deployment | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Data residency control | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Proven at high scale (1M+ MAU) | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Capability | Ping Identity | ForgeRock |
|---|---|---|
| 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
- Are Ping and ForgeRock still separate products?
- Yes. Ping acquired ForgeRock in August 2023. As of 2026, PingOne, PingFederate, DaVinci, and ForgeRock Identity Cloud remain commercially distinct. Cross-product integration is in progress, not done. Evaluate the platform you will actually run, not the brand on the invoice.
- Should a new customer buy ForgeRock or PingOne?
- PingOne first, unless a specific on-prem, Java-node, or ForgeRock IGA requirement forces the other stack. Compass's ForgeRock verdict is explicit: most new buyers should not start on ForgeRock in 2026. The post-acquisition roadmap is the risk, not the protocol support.
- Do existing ForgeRock customers have to move to PingOne?
- Not on a published forced-migration clock in 2026. The platform is still sold and developed. Treat convergence as a planning assumption, not a next-quarter project, and get the timeline in writing from Ping before you budget a replatform.
- Is this an alternative to Auth0?
- Only for large enterprise and public-sector workloads that need on-prem, hybrid, or the IdP long tail. Mid-market teams comparing Auth0 to Ping or ForgeRock on DX or price are in the wrong aisle. See Auth0 vs Ping Identity for that split.
This is not a two-vendor bake-off. It is an in-family product-selection problem after Ping bought ForgeRock.
Choose PingOne / DaVinci for new work. Choose ForgeRock when Authentication Trees, Java nodes, or ForgeRock IGA are already in production and the switching cost is the real number on the slide. Do not pick ForgeRock as a greenfield CIAM in 2026 unless the RFP names those constraints.
If you are not already an enterprise IAM buyer, neither of these is the shortlist.
Profiles: Ping Identity, ForgeRock. Adjacent: Auth0 vs Ping Identity.