We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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 feature of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is its ability to reset passwords every time that it is needed or periodically."
"The most valuable feature is that it does lifecycle management and that it will change to whatever the end target is."
"It has drastically reduced the attack surface for local administrative rights and the chance of escalation of privilege. We've removed, at this point, close to 98 percent of the local administrative accounts on workstations. If there were an incident, it would stop at that point and we'd be able to know."
"You can use it to strip users of their local admin rights and, at the same time, elevate applications for them."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is its high performance, it's the best identity security platform. The security is good. It's easy to showcase the feature and capabilities and compare it with other competitors. It competes well with other solutions. Additionally, it is a complete solution."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"We were able to reduce the number of privileged accounts by 50%, which helped to simplify our privileged access management environment."
"I like that you can remove the admin rights from the user's computer and have control over the environment. That means you can delete the local admins and grant them proper privileges with the console. So, they will get proper permissions for applications they need, but we don't have to do it. In the domain where we don't have control, the user can only do specified actions, but not all of them."
"The solution is scalable, we have 500 users using this solution."
"The security is very good, compared to some other products."
"The product is quite scalable."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its deployment. It is easy to centrally deploy. You can deploy it on the Administration Console then deploy it to the different endpoint machines without specifically deploying it manually on each machine. Its deployment is really user friendly."
"The tool's interface is good."
"The hardware hardware detection is the most valuable feature. The feature where you can block and unblock mobile devices is also good."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"Setting up Kaspersky is easy, but it requires two or three core members from our team, including admins and managers if necessary. And that is because of the administration that I mentioned."
"The tool should be more user-friendly."
"One area that has room for improvement is in managing the credentials for network devices."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"Technical support is slow to respond when we run into issues."
"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."
"The price of the solution should improve."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is not suitable for the current situation because when you compare it to OTP, OTP is the strongest password solution. You can use it as a one-time password, but you have to log into the password manager itself and if you don't change your password, it will be the weakest link in the security. In OTP, you don't have that weakest link."
"The product's threat protection and defense capabilities need enhancement."
"The product must improve its price to suit small and mid-size enterprises."
"The need to re-engineer the source code to reduce CPU and memory usage. Other areas for improvement include a data-loss prevention solution, enhanced application control, enhanced device control, an endpoint encryption solution, an advanced persistent threats (APT) solution, and an all-in-one solution with one pricing scheme for corporate and enterprise business needs."
"The solution could improve by providing a cloud service that synchronizes with the on-premise console which would give better connectivity in remote areas."
"It's grown more expensive and customers are not happy about it."
"Maybe the solution's monitoring could be improved with more dashboards, so there's no back and forth, back and forth."
"The solution sometimes slows down the computers of our clients, the performance needs to improve."
"This solution needs improvement in the reporting section. Reporting in Kaspersky Endpoint is good but it's not that great. The platform needs to centralize reporting control."
"I think it would be good for them to consider and cloud integration capabilities."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 27 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 12th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 111 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Tanium, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.
