We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable aspects of the solution include password management and Rest API retrieval of vaulted credentials."
"It has the ability to scale out. We have scaled out quite a bit with our product and use of it to get to multiple locations and businesses, so it has the breadth to do that."
"Password rotation, session recording & isolation and on-demand privileges."
"We are able to rotate credentials and have privileged account access."
"You can gradually implement CyberArk, starting with more easily attainable goals."
"The technical support for this solution is very good. If I was to rate it on a scale of one to five, I would give it a five."
"We have demoted a lot of domain admins and taken a lot of that away from people, giving it a shared account structure."
"Our go-to solution for securing against the pass the hash attack vector and auditing privileged account usage."
"The most valuable feature is the Posture Assessment."
"AWS has improved our agility to apply firewall rules. It has reduced the amount of time that it takes to apply firewall rules because everything is based in the cloud."
"The technical support for the solution is very good."
"In Palo Alto the most important feature is the App-ID."
"Centralized management is valuable because it allows us to configure settings in one location and apply them across all three locations."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is easy to maintain...From a security point of view, I find Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to be a better product compared to the other solutions in the market."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"I don't know if "failed authentication" is a glitch or if that was an update... However, since we are the CyberArk support within our organization, we need to know that the password is suspended and we won't know that unless we have the ITA log up. So when a user calls and says, "Hey, I'm locked out of CyberArk, I can't get into CyberArk," we have to go through all of these other troubleshooting steps because the first thing we don't think of right now is, "The account is suspended." It doesn't say that anymore."
"Sometimes the infrastructure team is hesitant to provide more resources."
"The one place where we found that this product really needs to improve is the cloud. Simple integrations don't exist, even today. We don't have anything specific on CyberArk for managing, SaaS products, SaaS vendors, SaaS credentials. I understand it's a vendor-based thing and that they have to coordinate with the other vendors to be able to do that, and there are integrations coming. But these are the major places where CyberArk definitely needs to invest some more time."
"Report creation could be improved. The policies could be more customized."
"The current user interface is a little dated. However, I hear there are changes coming in the next version."
"They are sometimes not flexible with things. For instance, from one day to another, there might be something that had been done years ago by CyberArk, then they say, "We do not support that." You then have to initiate a complaint and start working with them. Things might become complicated and months pass while you are working with them. Usually, they are good and fast, but sometimes they seem to be blocked with problems, e.g., you will suddenly be working with another team instead of the team that you were working with the day before."
"CyberArk has a lot on the privileged access side but they have to concentrate more on the application side as well."
"There is room for improvement in the availability of custom connectors on the marketplace for this solution. Additionally, their services for the CICD pipeline and ease of integration could be improved."
"The user-friendliness of the UI could be improved."
"The tool is very costly."
"On the cloud side, they need to come up with more HA solutions to support the multi-region."
"The one issue that I didn't like is that the SNMP integration with interfaces didn't record the interface counters."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"The interface is all Java-based. I would prefer an HTML5 interface."
"The product could be better in terms of performance than one of its competitors."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 144 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 53 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager writes "Lets you ensure relevant, compliant access in good time and with an audit trail, yet lacks clarity on MITRE ATT&CK". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion and One Identity Safeguard, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
We monitor all Privileged Access Management (PAM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.