Ping Identity vs SSOJet

The honest comparison

Put these two on the same page and the first thing to say is that they usually sit at opposite ends of the same connection. Ping Identity is what a bank, insurer, or government agency runs as its own identity provider, founded in 2002, owned by Thoma Bravo, with self-hosted, hybrid, and cloud deployment and the deepest federation heritage in the category. SSOJet is what a B2B SaaS vendor buys so that its application can accept a SAML assertion from that bank and provision users over SCIM.

Teams compare them anyway, usually a SaaS company asking whether it needs a real IdP. Almost always the answer is no. We rate Ping the wrong tool for a greenfield cloud-first team, and running it well assumes dedicated identity engineers. The reverse is equally clear: an enterprise with legacy protocols, brokering across many identity sources, and on-premises constraints will not be served by a 2024 vendor whose reference base is still small and whose deployment model is SaaS only.

When Ping Identity wins

• You are the party issuing the assertion, not the application receiving it
• Self-hosted or hybrid deployment is required by regulation or architecture, and SSOJet has neither
• Outbound federation to a whole portfolio of downstream applications is the job, not inbound SSO for one
• Identity orchestration across systems, which PingOne DaVinci targets, is in scope

When SSOJet wins

• You sell B2B software and your customers are asking your app to support SSO
• The work is inbound SAML, OIDC, and SCIM, not running identity infrastructure
• You have no dedicated identity engineering team and need this shipped quickly
• Published, forecastable pricing matters more than platform depth you will not use

Pricing

Ping Identity pricing is quote-based by module and deployment model, and it does not publish per-user rates; self-managed licensing differs from PingOne SaaS, and complex federation or migration work usually carries professional services cost. Any number you see quoted publicly should be treated as unverified. SSOJet sits at the other extreme, with rates on a page keyed to connections and active organizations, because its buyer is a startup that has to forecast the cost of one enterprise deal before signing it. Since the two serve different buyers, the useful exercise is costing your own side of the connection in the TCO calculator.

Verdict

Choose Ping Identity if you are the enterprise, deployment flexibility and protocol depth decide it, and you have the engineering capacity to run it. Choose SSOJet if you are the SaaS vendor on the other side of that connection and want enterprise readiness without adopting an enterprise platform, accepting an emerging vendor's shorter track record. If you are still choosing which platform to run as your own IdP, Microsoft Entra vs Ping Identity covers that decision; if you are on the SaaS side and want the established version of SSOJet's layer, read WorkOS vs SSOJet.