We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, Delinea, BeyondTrust and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM)."The risk of lost password and forbidden access to resources has been drastically reduced which increased the security level for the entire company,"
"On the customer accounts side, our account managers are responsive. If you ask them, they will get you whomever you need."
"We know when passwords will be expiring so we can force users to change their passwords, as well as requiring specific password requirements for length, complexity, etc."
"We are utilizing CyberArk to secure applications, credentials, and endpoints."
"Because we now have the ability to grant access to management utilities like DNS Manager, Sequel Studio, and MMC, in a secure fashion, without system admins being required to continually reenter various passwords that are stored who knows where, it has really made the system admin's job much easier. It has made the PSM's job much easier. It has made the auditor's job and the security team's job and the access manager's job significantly easier, because we're able to move much more quickly toward a role-based access management system, and that is really streamlining the whole onboarding/offboarding management process."
"It has helped us with our adoption with other teams, and it has also helped us to integrate it at the ground level."
"The technical support is good."
"It is an extremely scalable solution."
"Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"The features I have found best are ease of use, GUI, and performance."
"The main features of this solution are customization and ease to use."
"The documentation is very good."
"Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security."
"The gain in performance and security from configuring the VPN connections was significant."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"Tech support staff can be more proactive."
"It needs better documentation with more examples for the configuration files and API/REST integration"
"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."
"It can be integrated with other systems, but it is not easy to integrate. It takes too long to integrate it. Its integration should be easier and simpler."
"The lead product has a slow process. There are some reports and requirements from CyberArk which are not readily available as an applicable solution. We have made consistent management requests in the logs."
"What could be improved in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the licensing model. It should be more flexible in terms of the users. Currently, it's based on the number of users, but many users only log in once in four months or once in five months. It would be great if the licensing model could be modified based on user needs. We even have users who have not logged in even once."
"The current interface doesn't scale that well, and has some screens still in the old layout."
"CyberArk has a lot on the privileged access side but they have to concentrate more on the application side as well."
"It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely."
"My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs."
"It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution."
"ClamAV AntiVirus can cause some crashes. That service should be improved."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 142 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Netgate pfSense 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 Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". 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 Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, KerioControl and Sophos UTM.
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.