We performed a comparison between ARCON Privileged Access Management and Symantec Privileged Access Manager 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 is recording video records for Windows and command-line reports for others, Linux and AIX, of whatever activities being carries by that particular administrator."
"With this log available, we can drill down to the activities performed by the people within our kiosk. There is a great feature where in the case of Unix servers, we have our own text-based logs. In the case of Window's server, we cannot create a text-based log, so our kiosk takes the screenshot or picture of the screen when I am working. It does this every three seconds."
"Video and audio logs are there for any activities that the privileged admin carries out."
"Logging, particularly screen recording for Windows RDP sessions. Also, command-logging for SSH sessions. This really helps us to see what commands/changes have been executed in a particular service at a given point of time, and by whom."
"The user interface, overall, is really good. If I have some 20 servers in my ID, I can easily see for which servers I have read-only access, for which servers I have prompt-access, and for which servers I have server admin access."
"For compliance, each change I do, in each of the servers, is clearly recorded. We recently faced an audit and this was an awesome feature. Even our auditor had praise for it saying, "This is really a good feature.""
"That dashboard is okay."
"It gives us a lot of comfort in terms of security level. Our infrastructure devices and servers are secured and nobody can have unauthorized access to them."
"Password Management and Session Recording. The simplicity and ease that it is to be up and running out-of-the-box is very much appreciated."
"It gives you list of servers, so you can see which users have access to which servers. This is really useful, so we can make sure nobody is getting extra access than what is needed."
"The interface is very friendly, colorful, and bold."
"The product is very scalable in terms of concurrent sessions that it can handle at a time, number of device it can support, accounts that it can manage, or number of nodes that you can deploy in a cluster."
"It's easy to use and easy to configure."
"The RDP-gateway: For limiting which server an operator can access."
"We found that the architecture is scalable and very resilient."
"We know we can scale up with what we have, and we probably will not need to buy any further appliances down the road."
"The usability should be expanded to other browsers like Chrome and Firefox."
"One common problem I faced with ARCON PAM was compatibility issues with certain software versions."
"We expect improvement in the dashboards to provide visibility of password compliance status, whenever a password is opened from the vault. Also, flexibility to customize the live dashboard."
"The product is browser dependent. As of now, it only works on Internet Explorer from the client side. Admins cannot use any other browsers (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, etc.) to access the client manager online."
"Managing users is difficult, so that is something that can be improved."
"Sometimes it gets stuck between servers and I would like to see this improved in the future."
"A few areas for improvement in ARCON would be performance optimization, ensuring smoother management."
"Initially, there were some issues with .NET applications in Windows 10 systems."
"Instead of just giving passwords to the user based on job function, from auditing perspective, turn that cycle around. That would really help from an auditing standpoint."
"They need to do a little bit more on the mainframe side."
"We have to do a lot of manual work to automate features."
"An improvement for this solution is that it should not be constantly based on user name and password. There should be a condition to edit and update your username."
"Bring more technology into the portfolio and being able to collapse those products into a much more integrated way."
"What I hope happens with the new product CA PAM is to keep all the useful features that exist in PA, but what I’ve noticed with many new products is the UI gets polished but systems lags stability and performance or it adds additional complexity instead of simplifying the user experience."
"The setup is complex."
"It's difficult to locate the reports, there are limits on what reports can be run from the GUI, and the report formats are lacking."
More ARCON Privileged Access Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Symantec Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
ARCON Privileged Access Management is ranked 8th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 32 reviews while Symantec Privileged Access Manager is ranked 18th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 50 reviews. ARCON Privileged Access Management is rated 7.8, while Symantec Privileged Access Manager is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of ARCON Privileged Access Management writes "Offers good session monitoring and recording features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Symantec Privileged Access Manager writes "Allows IT and consultants to access the infrastructure environment but needs more security and better support". ARCON Privileged Access Management is most compared with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), ManageEngine PAM360, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management and senhasegura Session Management, whereas Symantec Privileged Access Manager is most compared with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management and Delinea Secret Server. See our ARCON Privileged Access Management vs. Symantec Privileged Access Manager report.
See our list of best Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors.
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.