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 regulation of accounts is by far the most needed and valuable part of the application."
"The central password manager is the most valuable feature because the password is constantly changing. If an outsider threat came in and gained access to one of those passwords, they would not have access for long."
"With PAM in place, we've experienced a significant reduction in potential security breaches."
"On the customer accounts side, our account managers are responsive. If you ask them, they will get you whomever you need."
"The technical support is good."
"It has the ability to scale out. We have scaled out quite a bit with our product and use of it to get to multiple locations and businesses, so it has the breadth to do that."
"It helps our customers in their software requirement imports."
"The most valuable feature is that it always provides flexibility, password quality and one-time user check-in and check-out."
"The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems."
"The "OpenVPN Client Export" package is really helpful in exporting the VPN client software on most popular devices: iOS/Android, Windows, Mac, Linux, and a handful of SIP handsets."
"The initial setup was simple and fast."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"A very stable product that lasts over time, easy to understand, and administer."
"At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"Firewall system for small, medium, and large data networks. It allows you to provide security to your environment: DMZ networks, LAN, WAN, etc."
"This is probably a common thing, but they do ask for a lot of log files, a lot of information. They ask you to provide a lot of information to them before they're willing to give you anything at all upfront. It would be better if they were a little more give-and-take upfront: "Why don't you try these couple of things while we take your log files and stuff and go research them?" A little bit of that might be more helpful."
"We'd like to see the creation of some kind of memo field for each device account, which could be used, in our network at least, to leave a note about the device for either the security or network engineering team members."
"Integration with the ticketing system should allow any number of fields to be used for validation before allowing a user to be evaluated and able to access a server."
"We found a lot of errors during the initial setup. They should work to improve the implementation experience and to remove errors from the process."
"They can do a better job in the PSM space."
"The initial setup was somewhat complex."
"New functionalities and discovered bugs take longer to patch. We would greatly appreciate quicker development of security patches and bug corrections."
"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 needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis."
"If you want to take advantage of all of the solution's options, you need to have a bit of a technical background. It's not for a layperson."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"The solution’s interface must be improved."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense."
"Lacks instructional videos."
"The integration could 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.