We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Sectona Privileged Access Management 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 a scalable product."
"CyberArk has allowed us to get the credentials and passwords out of hard-coded property files."
"Our go-to solution for securing against the pass the hash attack vector and auditing privileged account usage."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is privileged threat analytics."
"All the features of CyberArk are useful for me, but the biggest one is that CyberArk has logs for all the features. That is important when there is a problem. You know where to look and you have the information. In cyber security, the most important aspect is information."
"With PAM in place, we've experienced a significant reduction in potential security breaches."
"The technical support is good."
"Technical support has been very responsive in navigating challenges. It is very easy to open a ticket."
"A key factor for my company is support, and Sectona Privileged Access Management has good support. Another valuable feature of Sectona Privileged Access Management is that it's easy to onboard."
"The most valuable features of Sectona Privileged Access Management include robust session monitoring for privileged users."
"The most valuable feature of Sectona Privileged Access Management for protecting Privileged accounts is its built-in launcher. Additionally, the single sign-on capability is good. Sectona's session recording feature is particularly noteworthy because it utilizes minimal storage. Instead of recording entire sessions, it captures activity only when necessary, optimizing storage space."
"The most valuable feature is the risk management. When a Privileged user performs a certain command, such as running a script, the system highlights it in the risk management section as high, critical, or medium risk."
"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."
"The documentation is rather basic and it is missing many use cases."
"The web access piece needs improvement. We have version 9.5 or 9.9.5, and now we have to upgrade to version 10."
"As they grow, the technical support is having growing pains. One of the things is just being able to get somebody on the phone sometimes."
"The one place where we found that this product really needs to improve is the cloud. Simple integrations don't exist, even today. We don't have anything specific on CyberArk for managing, SaaS products, SaaS vendors, SaaS credentials. I understand it's a vendor-based thing and that they have to coordinate with the other vendors to be able to do that, and there are integrations coming. But these are the major places where CyberArk definitely needs to invest some more time."
"If there is an area that has room for improvement, it's probably working with their support and getting people on the phone. That is hard to do with most products in general, but that seems to be the difficult area. The product is fantastic, but sometimes we want somebody on the phone."
"As a customer, I might need a plugin for a specific product, or an application, and CyberArk might have already worked with some other client on it. There has to be some platform where it is available for everybody else to go and grab it, instead of my having to reinvent the wheel."
"It is very complex and difficult to set up the solution."
"Sectona Privileged Access Management needs to improve its stability. It needs to enhance the product's stability because of frequent updates. This is crucial for a solution like Privileged Access Management, as organizations rely on stability. When it becomes unstable, it causes panic."
"Sectona needs to think about SaaS solutions and cloud use cases. For example, we need to be able to integrate Sectona PAM with next-generation applications such as Docker and Lambda, as well as ITD pipelines that use privileged user data."
"As I don't have at least one to two years of experience with Sectona Privileged Access Management, I cannot share areas for improvement in the solution. To me, Sectona Privileged Access Management has reasonable pricing, but it could still be improved. I'm also unsure if Sectona Privileged Access Management could cover the requirements of large-sized companies, but for small-sized to medium-sized companies, I'd recommend the solution."
"I would like to see future updates include robust support for cloud environments as organizations increasingly move towards cloud-based solutions."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sectona Privileged Access Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 144 reviews while Sectona Privileged Access Management is ranked 17th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 4 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Sectona Privileged Access Management is rated 7.8. 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 Sectona Privileged Access Management writes "Effective risk management, feature of recording all privileged user activities in a compressed format but limited SaaS capability". 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 Sectona Privileged Access Management is most compared with ARCON Privileged Access Management. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Sectona Privileged Access Management 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.