We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and NetWitness Platform 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."It has helped us with our adoption with other teams, and it has also helped us to integrate it at the ground level."
"The most valuable feature is Special Monitoring."
"The product is an important security measure against credential theft. It ensures session isolation and password rotation including pushing passwords to the endpoints."
"We've written over a hundred custom connectors ourselves that allow us to do all types of privileged session management for various applications. On top of that, the rest of the API-based central credential providers allow us to get away from credentials that may be hard-coded in the script or some application."
"The Vault offers great capabilities for structuring and accessing data."
"The ability to develop and deploy applications with no stored secrets is very valuable."
"All of the features of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager are valuable."
"The key aspects of privileged access management are being able rotate passwords, make sure someone is accountable, and tie it back to a user (when the system is being used)."
"NetWitness can be highly beneficial for incident detection and response."
"The product's initial setup phase was not at all difficult."
"The packet capture aspect of it is a valuable feature because it is quite different from a traditional SIEM solution that only carries out investigations based on captured logs."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation. It can report in real-time and monitor the management."
"The most valuable features are the integration and ease of use."
"Setting up NetWitness is straightforward. There are multiple connectors, including standard and specialized connectors. One purpose of the connectors is the enhanced capability integrate the custom applications. NetWitness comes with E6 appliances and application images that we use for the initial configurations and for the OS stack information. From there, you can consider the correlation rules, integrate the different log sources, and easily create correlation rules and backlog reports."
"In my opinion, the solution's most valuable feature is its capacity to monitor network traffic, logs from devices within the network, and network captures. This capability extends beyond logs to include full network capturing."
"Alerting Module: It provides real-time event processing language on all the logs/packets stream for advanced alerting, i.e., using SQL LIKE statements."
"Tech support staff can be more proactive."
"Over the past seven years, I have seen a lot of ups and downs with the product."
"It is very complex and difficult to set up the solution."
"When something comes out, it's generally airtight and works as advertised. However, sometimes they are a little bit slow to keep up with what's coming out. In 2017, for example, they released support for Windows Server 2016, which had been out for a year or so."
"I would like to see is the policy export and import. When we expend, we do not want to just hand do a policy."
"I would like to see better automation in granting access, better tools, more efficient tools, to be able to customize the solution that CyberArk provides."
"The documentation is rather basic and it is missing many use cases."
"I would like easier integrations for creating an online dashboard that executives would look at or are able to run reports from the tool."
"The log system is a bit complex and has room for improvement."
"Security needs improvement."
"The threat detection capability and centralizing and upgrading capability need to be improved. The threat alert capability needs to be improved as well because there is some lag time at present. They need to work on their database search too."
"The initial setup was complex because it takes a lot of time to complete the implementation."
"I'd like to see improvement in its ease of use. It's basically unusable. It's overly complex."
"The user interface is a little bit difficult for new users and it needs to be improved."
"RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets can improve the threat level aspect, it is lacking compared to other solutions. Whenever any hacking activity or any other threat factor occurred they used to provide the coverages very fast when comparing RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets. I heard the other three solutions, from a discussion with my team members who had experience in other solutions, they used to say that. Whenever any issues happened across the globe RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets are a little bit slow improving those detection mechanisms."
"Nowadays, their support is a little subpar compared to other solutions. I rate RSA support six out of 10."
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 NetWitness Platform is ranked 19th in Log Management with 36 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while NetWitness Platform is rated 7.4. 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 NetWitness Platform writes "Can find out if there is lateral movement, but integration and workflow need improvement". 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 NetWitness Platform is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, RSA enVision, IBM Security QRadar, Cisco Secure Network Analytics and Microsoft Sentinel. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. NetWitness Platform 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.