Topic starter
20/08/2026 5:45 pm
TL;DR: Customers are leaving Ping Identity because of high costs, scaling issues, poor user experience, and complexity, according to Ory’s analysis. For IAM teams, the real issue is not branding but whether an identity stack can support modern access patterns without adding operational drag.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Ory: “Is Ping Identity still a leader in Identity and Access Management (IAM)?”.
Key questions
Q: When does an IAM platform become too complex to keep operating effectively?
A: An IAM platform becomes too complex when routine changes depend on custom code, repeated exceptions, or scarce specialists to keep core access flows stable.
Q: Why do high IAM operating costs create security and governance risk?
A: High operating costs create risk when they force teams to defer upgrades, postpone integrations, or tolerate manual processes that should be automated.
Q: How can teams tell when an IAM platform is becoming a bottleneck?
A: Teams can spot bottlenecks when routine identity changes require specialist intervention, help-desk load rises, or application onboarding slows down.
Practitioner guidance
- Audit identity platform friction points Map where admins, developers, and end users spend time on manual IAM work such as federation setup, policy exceptions, recovery flows, and support escalations.
- Re-test scaling assumptions against current architecture Validate whether the platform still performs cleanly across tenant growth, regional expansion, and mixed application types rather than relying on legacy capacity assumptions.
- Measure lifecycle control consistency Review whether joiner, mover, and leaver workflows stay consistent when identity changes span multiple apps, directories, and federation boundaries.
Bottom line: The article frames Ping Identity migration pressure as an operational and governance issue, not a branding dispute.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
20/08/2026 6:27 pm
IAM leadership is being judged on operational fit, not brand status. The migration pressure described in the article reflects a market in which customers are no longer willing to tolerate cost, complexity, and workflow friction simply because a vendor has historical reputation. That does not mean identity governance is less important. It means the governance test has become whether the platform can support modern access patterns without multiplying manual effort and exception handling.
A few things that frame the scale:
- DeepSeek alone generated 113,000 new exposed API keys in 2025, illustrating how new AI providers create credential exposure before security guardrails catch up, according to the State of Secrets Sprawl 2026.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: When should organisations prioritise usability in IAM design?
A: Whenever access controls are creating enough delay or complexity that users start bypassing them. Usability is not a soft requirement in IAM, because controls only protect when people will actually use them. In hybrid and cloud-heavy environments, the secure design has to be workable at scale.
👉 Read our full editorial: Ping Identity migration pressure shows IAM leader claims are eroding