We used RSA Access Manager. The switch was made because this solution works better in a cloud environment.

We didn't use any other solution previously. This was the first time we were trying to do an endpoint privilege management solution. 

I was using CyberArk. While both products achieve the same goal, they differ significantly in their architectures and how they integrate with applications. It's challenging to make a direct comparison, but they essentially do the same things.  

Apart from pricing considerations, BeyondTrust is a newer product, and therefore it's more agile and has a more solid approach.

CyberArk is obviously the more mature market leader in the PAM space. They have a lot more experience and a larger pool of people with CyberArk skills in the marketplace. So if you are looking for a more mature product, then CyberArk would probably be the better choice.

CyberArk is a significant rival, offering a multitude of features, some of which may not necessarily align with the fundamental needs of the customers. Avecto Defendpoint, on the other hand, caters to the precise requirements articulated by the customers. This thorough comparison involves not only feature sets but also financial considerations and other pertinent aspects.

We didn’t use any previous solutions.

I have utilized OpenAM SSO, as a single sign-on. That was a Canadian product. It was an open-source solution. But I am happier with BeyondTrust. About 95 percent of use cases are handled by BeyondTrust. Whether you're talking about a bank or a telco, whatever their requirements are, they can be met by the PAM. When it comes to the PAM, I don't think that any application can compete with BeyondTrust, except for the financial issue that has been recently affected by the change in the licensing model.

I didn't switch the client to this one. I recommended this one because it stays under the BeyondTrust umbrella. It also helped them in getting a discount for volume and being a loyal customer and things like that. They also didn't have to add new infrastructure. 

CyberArk is a very good product, and I like it. I've been trained in it, but I have not implemented it. I am not going to ask the customer to install another infrastructure or another platform, especially when the products are fairly equal or equal enough to not be an issue to put on a table. If I had recommended CyberArk, they would have to put in a CyberArk infrastructure and retrain a whole bunch of administrators to administer that. They would also have to train a whole bunch of support people to manage off-hours, holidays, weekends, and things like that. Every time you add another brand, it adds to your soft costs, which can make a solution pretty expensive.

Hard costs are so much fun, and they're much easier. I've seen people get up and just start writing on a dry erase board because they know all the hard costs. It would be good if they would just be honest with themselves and the clients and explain what some of the soft costs are in terms of additional training or a more significant hardware footprint.

I wasn't using any similar solution previously.

No.

We offer a variety of competing solutions to our clients, such as CyberArk. In general, the competitors are cheaper in price. I have not personally used other solutions because it was BeyondTrust that brought me into the privileged access management realm.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

We did not previously use another solution.