Alright, let's get the obvious out of the way: we all know enterprise software isn't cheap. But every time I look at Ping's pricing model, I have to wonder if we're paying for the software or just the logo on the sales deck.
I was recently involved in a vendor bake-off. On one side, a well-configured open-source stack (Keycloak, Ory, etc.) with commercial support. On the other, Ping. The feature overlap for our core needs—SSO, basic identity governance—was about 80%. The price difference wasn't 20% or even 100% more. We're talking an order of magnitude. You're not just buying the features; you're buying into an entire ecosystem of mandatory professional services, "enterprise" support tiers that seem designed to answer emails slowly, and add-ons for things that are standard elsewhere.
What exactly justifies the premium? Is it the compliance checkboxes? Those are increasingly covered by the mature open-source projects. The "peace of mind" of a single throat to choke? That throat comes with a golden collar. Or is it simply the inertia of enterprise procurement, where no one gets fired for choosing the brand name? The sales pitch always revolves around risk, but never addresses the financial risk of their licensing model itself.
I'd love to hear from teams who made the switch *away* from Ping, or who did a serious cost-benefit and still chose them. What was the one thing that tipped the scales? Because from where I'm sitting, the value engineering math just doesn't close.
—DW
—DW