We performed a comparison between CyberArk Identity and Microsoft BitLocker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Cisco, Auth0 and others in Single Sign-On (SSO)."The user identification is simplified, and managing user privileges, whether adding or revoking them, is also quite straightforward when utilizing CyberArk SaaS."
"The setup, via cloud, is simple."
"I like the RBAC (Role-Based Access Control). It basically involves defining various roles, and then simply assigning those roles to users."
"If anyone makes an error, or if an incident occurs by accident, the business will not be harmed as a result of this activity."
"The tool helps with authentication. It acts as an MFA for any kind of privileged access that occurs in our organization."
"The most valuable features of CyberArk Identity are its ability to control access to administrative staff."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Identity is the adaptive interface."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Identity was straightforward."
"Technical support is excellent."
"It is an encryption tool and provides security."
"I like the fact that you can get a BitLocker encryption key out of OneDrive."
"Integration with System Center Configuration Manager (C: and D: logical drives are encrypted before installing Windows via SCCM)."
"I like the simplicity and ease of use of this solution."
"The solution is included in Windows 11."
"Whole Disk Encryption is great. BitLocker runs seamlessly during boot up."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the protection and ease of use."
"The OpenID features could improve in CyberArk Identity."
"I'm not sure what needs improvement. It is a good platform."
"CyberArk Identity's GUI is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement."
"More integrations would be better."
"In terms of a governance platform, it's worth noting that CyberArk doesn't offer a particularly strong one."
"There is room for improvement in documentation. The documentation could be more specific about the changes needed to achieve specific goals."
"In terms of general user feedback, the more security you put in front of a user, the more they complain. So usability and the user experience are always a challenge. So there's always room for improvement."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The deployment process regarding prerequisites and automation could be easy to understand."
"They can improve the security of the application and include an encryption disk in the next feature."
"The solution could improve by having a centralized GUI for management."
"The reporting in Microsoft is very minimal."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved."
"We recently found some stability issues with Microsoft BitLocker."
"The integration between Active Directory and BitLocker could be better."
"The solution should offer encryption for other items such as shared folders, removable media, etc."
CyberArk Identity is ranked 9th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 17 reviews while Microsoft BitLocker is ranked 1st in Endpoint Encryption with 59 reviews. CyberArk Identity is rated 8.2, while Microsoft BitLocker is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CyberArk Identity writes "Allows Linux and Unix administrators to login with single password ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft BitLocker writes "User-friendly, easy to set up, and offers real-time machine status updates". CyberArk Identity is most compared with Microsoft Intune, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Microsoft Entra ID, SailPoint IdentityIQ and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas Microsoft BitLocker is most compared with ESET Endpoint Encryption, McAfee Complete Data Protection, Symantec Endpoint Encryption, Trend Micro Endpoint Encryption and Boxcryptor.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.