We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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."The solution's technical support is good."
"The feature called PTA, which stands for Privileged Threat Analytics keeps track of what admins are doing and works with Centimeters. If something fishy is going on with a user's credentials, it alerts the security team so they can act fast. Plus, it automates stuff like resetting credentials or blocking users. So, if there's a potential hack, CyberArk can change passwords and lock out users in a snap. It also gives you a heads-up if anything unusual is going on with server activities, like someone creating new users with uncontrolled credentials."
"The most valuable feature is that their database is completely encrypted and protected with multiple layers."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is very easy to manage, which I like. The solution also has a dashboard where you can see which software is suspicious, which I find valuable."
"The department management aspect of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"It has drastically reduced the attack surface for local administrative rights and the chance of escalation of privilege. We've removed, at this point, close to 98 percent of the local administrative accounts on workstations. If there were an incident, it would stop at that point and we'd be able to know."
"This is the number one product for privilege account security."
"You can use it to strip users of their local admin rights and, at the same time, elevate applications for them."
"It has helped our company protect the confidential data of our customers."
"We swtiched to Kaspersky Endpoint Security because we found our previous solution did not meet our requirements."
"The most valuable feature is the management center."
"The malware threat detection has been excellent overall."
"The solution is user-friendly and the dashboard is good."
"The performance is good. It doesn't use a lot of resources, which is crucial for us."
"As far as it functions, it works fine."
"The solution is scalable, we have 500 users using this solution."
"Can be improved by allowing computers to be excluded from policies."
"The solution is very expensive."
"For an experienced system implementer it will take approximately one day. However, for somebody who is inexperienced it may take up to five days."
"They need much better integration with Azure AD."
"We have had some major issues with the tool, but we have worked with the R&D teams and we have worked with support. There is room for improvement, especially on response times. But they're working on it and they're doing the best they can."
"One area that has room for improvement is in managing the credentials for network devices."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"CyberArk is a pretty heavy solution."
"There are many improvements needed, such as faster responses, faster notification, and immediate reports."
"There have been some performance issues. They provide good security, but this slows down the performance of machines' servers. The software is not updating as frequently as we need."
"Kaspersky Endpoint Security could have more visibility and threat hunting. Right now, if it detects a file, it's quarantined, and then we can't find more details other than the path and the file name. We don't see what process it's warning off and how the virus got in. So, the reporting on the quarantined items, why were they quarantined, etc., could be improved."
"The solution could use better reporting."
"The solution could improve by providing a cloud service that synchronizes with the on-premise console which would give better connectivity in remote areas."
"It would be preferable if the product were more proactive and more modern in its approach to security and protection."
"The reporting portion of the solution is quite weak."
"They can improve the zero-day exploit to be more effective."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 7th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 25 reviews while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is ranked 11th in EPP (Endpoint Protection for Business) with 108 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0, while Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business writes "Easy to setup, stable and good security use cases". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Tanium, whereas Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Fortinet FortiClient, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Check Point Harmony Endpoint. See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business 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.