We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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."What I found most valuable in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the Session Manager as it allows you to split the connection between the administrator site and the target site. I also found the Password Manager valuable as it lets you rotate the passwords of privileged users."
"We are utilizing CyberArk to secure applications, credentials, and endpoints."
"I find value in notifications from CyberArk when passwords fail verification and have other issues."
"All access to our servers by both staff and vendors is monitored and recorded."
"We also use CyberArk’s Secrets Manager. Because AWS is the biggest area for us, we have accounts in AWS that are being rotated by CyberArk. We also have a manual process for the most sensitive of our AWS accounts, like root accounts. We've used Secrets Manager on those and that has resulted in a significant risk reduction, as well."
"CyberArk is not just an IT security or cybersecurity tool. It's also an administrator tool. I had a fair number of systems where the passwords were not fully managed by CyberArk yet, and they were expiring every 30 or 45 days. I was able to get management turned on for those accounts. From an administrator perspective, I didn't have to go back into those systems and manually change those passwords anymore. CyberArk... lightened the load on our administrative work."
"For a while, there were individual IDs having privileged access. We wanted to restrict that. We implemented the solution so that it can be more of internal control. We can have session recordings happening and reduce our attacks."
"The password management feature is valuable."
"WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them."
"The backup is the best feature."
"The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"WildFire's application encryption is useful."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"It catches modified signatures of known viruses."
"Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides."
"Over the past seven years, I have seen a lot of ups and downs with the product."
"The solution could improve by adding more connectors."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager difficulty depends on the environment that you are implementing it into. However, it typically is simple."
"The initial setup was somewhat complex."
"It's hard to find competent resellers/support."
"In the beginning, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager didn't have a multifactor authentication feature, so that was an area for improvement, but now it's part of the solution. Having just one console for two CyberArk products would be good, particularly for the CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and the CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, with the latter being a product for endpoint management that supports the workstations and allows you to manage workstations. In the next update of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, it would be good to have a local agent where you can manage all users and processes, and have an agent on the servers such as Linux and Windows."
"One of our current issues is a publishing issue. If we whitelist Google Chrome, all the events of Google Chrome should be gone. It is not happening."
"There is a lot of room for improvement in the report section. I also work on other tools, such as Thycotic, which allows you to create customized reports for your organization's needs. In CyberArk, there are limited reports, whereas in Thycotic or some of the other PAM tools, because the database is different, you can customize the report based on your needs through SQL queries."
"I would like to see them continue on their developmental roadmap for the product."
"High availability features are lacking."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"The price could be better."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
"The size of Palo Alto's cloud is big but it could be easier to use from a product management perspective."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
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 WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. 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 WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". 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 WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Proofpoint Email Protection. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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.