Every category where a model named Ping Identity for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Customer identity and access management	Identity and access	4%	7 of 74	14%	22	accepted challenger
Multi-factor authentication	Identity and access	2%	6 of 78	13%	15	accepted challenger
Workforce identity and SSO	Identity and access	0%	9 of 48	30%	30	criticized challenger
Identity governance	Identity and access	0%	71 of 77	50%	6	under 10 labels · led by Lumos at 20%
Privileged access management	Identity and access	0%	71 of 74	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by ManageEngine PAM360 at 21%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Ping Identity yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Ping Identity across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	2	4	0	6
GPT-5.4 mini	0	1	2	1	4
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	3	0	1	4
Perplexity Sonar	0	3	0	1	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	5	3	10
Mistral Small	1	1	4	4	10
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	5	1	8
Llama 4 Maverick	2	0	1	1	4
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	5	1	1	7
Kimi K2	0	2	2	0	4
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	3	5	9
MiniMax M2.5	0	3	1	1	5

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct40 labels2

Paraphrase33 labels2

Comparative65 labels2not counted in share

Budget-constrained17 labels1

Scale-constrained45 labelsNone

Negative42 labels2not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative242 labels in all, every segment counted; 5 of the 9 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Ping Identity - Best for mid-size and larger workforces, starting at $6 per user monthly.” Llama 4 Maverick · MFA · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“one of the top CIAM platforms such as Auth0, Ping Identity, or Frontegg” Llama 4 Maverick · CIAM · direct prompt · first choice

“Auth0 and Ping Identity are the top recommendations” Mistral Small · CIAM · direct prompt · first choice

“Choose Ping Identity if you are a massive, highly regulated global enterprise that requires on-premises/cloud hybridity” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Workforce identity · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Customers have reported issues with high costs, scaling problems, poor user experience, and complexity. There is evidence of migration away from Ping Identity” Mistral Small · IGA · negative prompt · hard negative

“or if you require high availability and have experienced significant downtime (Ping Identity)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Workforce identity · negative prompt · hard negative

“Do not purchase these as a primary PAM solution.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · PAM · negative prompt · hard negative

“While it remains a strong choice for enterprises with complex federation and hybrid identity requirements, it may not be the best fit for organizations with different needs.” Llama 4 Maverick · Workforce identity · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Ping Identity, over the 242 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Ping Identity was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Microsoft Entra ID149 of 24267Not in the top three

Okta109 of 24239Not in the top three

Auth087 of 24231Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra External ID58 of 2424Not in the top three

Okta Workforce Identity52 of 24231Not in the top three

IBM Verify51 of 2420Not in the top three

JumpCloud50 of 2427Not in the top three

Cisco Duo47 of 24220Not in the top three

CyberArk Identity46 of 2420Not in the top three

ForgeRock46 of 2420Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Ping Identity. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 192 of the 242 answers that named Ping Identity and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startwithidentity.com126

securityboulevard.com86

expertinsights.com65

siit.io57

loginradius.com53

okta.com48

decryptiondigest.com42

guideflow.com39

guptadeepak.com38

workos.com38

592 of the 592 domain citations in answers naming Ping Identity came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

startwithidentity.com/rankings/best-iam-platforms43

startwithidentity.com/articles/top-6-workforce-identity-platforms42

expertinsights.com/identity-and-access-management/top-customer-identity-and-access-managem37

securityboulevard.com/2025/12/top-12-identity-and-access-management-platforms37

siit.io/blog/best-iam-tools33

securityboulevard.com/2026/08/top-5-enterprise-ciam-platforms-in-2026-in-depth-comparison30

startwithidentity.com/rankings/best-ciam-for-enterprises28

cybersecurityessential.com/tools/iam-zero-trust/okta-entra-ping-zero-trust-iam24

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Ping Identity

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Ping Identity; a claim can dispute any of them.

Ping 5Ping Identity (including ForgeRock) 3Ping Identity (PingOne) 2PingIdentity 2Ping Identity (ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (Ping Workforce360) 1Ping Identity (PingOne / PingID) 1Ping Identity (PingOne for Customers) 1Ping Identity (PingOne for Customers, incl. ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (incl. ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (now includes ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity (with ForgeRock) 1Ping Identity / Ping Workforce360 1Ping Identity/OneLogin 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Ping Identity's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Ping Identity, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at pingidentity.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.