We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Symantec Privileged Access Manager 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 implementation of the PSM proxy has reduced the specific risk of "insider attacks" on our domain controllers and SLDAP servers by eliminating direct user login by an open secure connection on the user's behalf without ever revealing the privileged credentials."
"The users have the ability to rotate passwords on a daily basis with a Reconcile Account. Or, if they want to do one-time password checkouts, we can manage those, check in, check out. I like the flexibility of the changing of the password, specifically."
"It is scalable."
"PSM (Privilege Session Manager."
"It is a scalable product."
"All of the features of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager are valuable."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is stable."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"The key benefits are we improve our governance. We ensure we can build more trust in the way we run and operate our environment, and most of all is the accountability."
"The RDP-gateway: For limiting which server an operator can access."
"The product is very scalable in terms of concurrent sessions that it can handle at a time, number of device it can support, accounts that it can manage, or number of nodes that you can deploy in a cluster."
"Comprehensive coverage of the required features for the PAM solution."
"The interface is very friendly, colorful, and bold."
"We can check the activities in the server for fragile files and documents in case of any issues."
"The DB clustering is a really good benefit of using CA PAM."
"CA PAM is working well for us."
"Having a centralized place to manage the solution has been something that I have always wanted, and they are starting to understand that and bring things back together."
"For users to access a system via CyberArk Privileged Session Manager, a universal connector needs to be coded in a language called AutoIT and its support for web browsers is so-so. Other products like Centrify have browser plugins that can help automate the process when using their products."
"The major pain point that we have is the capacity of CyberArk due to the sheer volume of NPAs that we are managing. We are a large organization and we have hundreds of thousands of non-personal accounts to manage. We have already found out that there are certain capacity limitations within CyberArk that might introduce performance issues. From my perspective, something that would be valuable would be if the vault could hold more passwords and be more scalable."
"There was a functionality of the solution that was missing. I had noticed it in Beyond Trust, but not in this solution. But, recently they have incorporated something similar."
"We need a bit more education for our user community because they are not using it to its capabilities."
"Its pricing is a big challenge here. When it started, the product came in at a very low cost. Now, they are the leaders in the market, so the cost has grown and is quite huge."
"The authentication port is available in CyberArk Alero but not Fortinet products."
"There should be more models and licensing plans for this software."
"The management console could be improved."
"Instead of just giving passwords to the user based on job function, from auditing perspective, turn that cycle around. That would really help from an auditing standpoint."
"I’m no fan of Java as an application front-end, as it tends to have issues depending on what browser one’s using."
"It's difficult to locate the reports, there are limits on what reports can be run from the GUI, and the report formats are lacking."
"The support for other remote assistance tools would be excellent. Free included tools in Windows (Remote Assist) and Microsoft SCCM Configuration Manager (ConMgr Remote Control) allow companies to reduce the amount of RDP connections and expand the usage of the tools are frequently used by companies to provide technical support for remote assistance."
"The service account management functionality needs to be extended to application pools, SQL database, PowerShell scripts, service account discovery, etc."
"Bring more technology into the portfolio and being able to collapse those products into a much more integrated way."
"An improvement for this solution is that it should not be constantly based on user name and password. There should be a condition to edit and update your username."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 144 reviews while Symantec Privileged Access Manager is ranked 18th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 50 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Symantec Privileged Access Manager is rated 7.8. 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 Symantec Privileged Access Manager writes "Allows IT and consultants to access the infrastructure environment but needs more security and better support". 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 Symantec Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, ARCON Privileged Access Management and Delinea Secret Server. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Symantec Privileged Access Manager report.
See our list of best Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors.
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.