We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Sophos UTM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, Delinea, BeyondTrust and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM)."On the customer accounts side, our account managers are responsive. If you ask them, they will get you whomever you need."
"I really like the PTA (Privileged Threat Analytics). I find this the best feature."
"Lessens the risk with privileged access."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is Special Monitoring."
"Password rotation, session recording & isolation and on-demand privileges."
"It is useful for protecting passwords. If you need to do access security management, you can first use the CyberArk console, and after that, you can connect the firewall interface or firewall command line. Similarly, if you need to do an RDP session, you need to first log in to CyberArk before connecting to the Windows RDP session. This way, the admin doesn't know the password, and that password is changed immediately. To change the password, you first discover the old password in the network, and after that, you can change the password."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"The scalability is good."
"The most valuable feature is the price. I've been requesting prices all over these years between different solutions like Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Check Point and Sophos has been the cheapest and the best of all of them that I have tried. I have been working with Fortinet, it's a fact that the price is surprisingly better."
"Efficient and effective - it's easy to separate rules."
"The packet filtering's great. You get out what you put into it. It works great as long as you know your security and configure everything adequately. If you just pop one in and it's not configured, then it's basically wide open. It kind of depends on the admin skill, but it's an excellent product."
"Technical support is very responsive."
"The most valuable feature of Sophos UTM is the simple-to-use interface."
"Sophos UTM has a good user interface and granular security controls."
"It has made our organization more secure, because we are using a VPN. We are not accessing services directly. It allows us to segregate some of the traffic for individuals which may be more of a developer role rather than an operational role needing access to developer resources, but not necessarily production operational resources."
"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."
"One thing that could be improved is to create of a better alternative for fixing group policy fees. We currently use Microsoft, but they have introduced new policies that may not be compatible."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager difficulty depends on the environment that you are implementing it into. However, it typically is simple."
"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 solution needs better features for end users to manage their own whitelisting for API retrieval."
"Sometimes the infrastructure team is hesitant to provide more resources."
"The current interface doesn't scale that well, and has some screens still in the old layout."
"The authentication port is available in CyberArk Alero but not Fortinet products."
"Sophos UTM could be simplified, and they can improve on the many other features, like SD-WAN and load balancing. Sophos UTM is missing a few features that their competitors have. For example, if you have multiple branches you would like to connect, the load balancing features aren't available on multilink. If we create a VPM for multiple LAN links, we cannot load balance the traffic."
"This product could use some improvement with web filtering. It takes a lot of time and effort to set up and maintain."
"There is still room for improvement in wireless protection. I don't mean their WiFi device is bad, but there are still things to improve on, such as WiFi roaming."
"The reporting could be a lot better."
"The lack of import/export functions for network and service options drives me mad."
"They could definitely improve on the support, especially in other countries."
"The virus updates will always depend on new viruses that are discovered. Maybe they can send a notification or a reminder for update time."
"I would like them to move from the Classic Load Balancer to the Network Load Balancer. This would make it easier to do certain things with Amazon. They are able to do some enhancements with Network Load Balancer that they are unable to do with Classic Load Balancer."
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 Sophos UTM is ranked 1st in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 110 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Sophos UTM 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 Sophos UTM writes "It's a highly stable platform with very few hardware issues". 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 Sophos UTM is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, OPNsense and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.
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.
