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)."CyberArk Privileged Access Manager's main benefit is it provides secure access to our servers. There are features to capture the user activity, it provides video recording processing. If the users are logged in to the server, we can see what activities they are performing. It's a very nice tool for Privileged Access Management. They have plenty of useful services and the solution has fulfilled our needs."
"The technical support is good."
"Helped us meet our standards and requirements to help us comply with industry standards and banking regulations."
"The most valuable features of the solution are control and analytics."
"There are no issues with scalability. Our clients are very happy to use the product."
"We are able to know who is accessing what and when; having accountability."
"The automatic password management is the most important feature. The second most important feature is the ability to enforce dual control on the release of those passwords. The combination of these two features is the most important thing for us because we can show that we're in control of who uses any non-personal account, and when they do so."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"A free firewall that is a good network security appliance."
"I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm."
"It is a good firewall with good performance."
"I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable."
"Improved service performance and availability through redundancy."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"The solution is fairly scalable when it comes to integrating with other applications and data sets."
"Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security."
"We don't often contact technical support, but when we do it, the response could be faster and better."
"The solution could improve by adding more connectors."
"Their post-sale support area requires a big improvement. Customers cannot automate tickets directly with CyberArk. They have to come through the distributor or bring in partners who have access to the support portal. Basically, the support for post-sales implementation is there, but the role of CyberArk is very minimal. Customers have to rely on partners, which sometimes creates issues. Some of the vendors help you during the implementation process, but the CyberArk support team does not do that. They have 24/7 support for our region, but they help only if there is an emergency or there is a problem with their system. If the password vault is down or the system is down, they provide immediate attention. For almost everything else, they take more time to respond. They give low priority to service-related or migration-related questions."
"Tech support staff can be more proactive."
"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."
"I don't know if "failed authentication" is a glitch or if that was an update... However, since we are the CyberArk support within our organization, we need to know that the password is suspended and we won't know that unless we have the ITA log up. So when a user calls and says, "Hey, I'm locked out of CyberArk, I can't get into CyberArk," we have to go through all of these other troubleshooting steps because the first thing we don't think of right now is, "The account is suspended." It doesn't say that anymore."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager could improve the integration with other solutions and ease of use. Additionally, there should be a feature to have remote connections without a VPN."
"The product documentation has to be more precise in certain aspects with explanations for functionality limitations along with reference material or screenshots."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app."
"The product must provide integration with other solutions."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually."
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 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.