We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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."I have always found that CyberArk is a very tight, foolproof product compared to most other products available."
"I like that you can remove the admin rights from the user's computer and have control over the environment. That means you can delete the local admins and grant them proper privileges with the console. So, they will get proper permissions for applications they need, but we don't have to do it. In the domain where we don't have control, the user can only do specified actions, but not all of them."
"I am impressed with the product's seamless integration. The PAM wallet and enterprise password wallet are good also good."
"The department management aspect of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"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."
"What sets CyberArk apart is its continuous innovation, staying ahead of the competition."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is its high performance, it's the best identity security platform. The security is good. It's easy to showcase the feature and capabilities and compare it with other competitors. It competes well with other solutions. Additionally, it is a complete solution."
"It monitors traffic and keeps us from getting ransomware or other viruses."
"The Webroot cloud console is very powerful."
"Doesn't consume resources or affect the computer performance at all."
"It is pretty unintrusive. It doesn't take over the system like McAfee or Norton. It doesn't use a whole lot of resources. McAfee and Norton use a lot of resources."
"It is an easy-to-use and easy-to-configure product."
"Valuable features include good scanning, very light footprint and management console that the client can access and (just as important) in which I can see status of groups of computers (I am a consultant, IT role)."
"It is very lightweight on the workstations, not slowing them down while still doing its job very well."
"It is excellent endpoint protection for mobiles that does everything it says it will."
"Performance could be better. We have a couple of problems with CyberArk right now. One of the problems is performance in our environment. Support also takes a long time to respond. If the user already has local admin rights, then I can't collect any events in the console from this device. There are also some options in CyberArk that are not working properly, and are not helpful in this case. I can't collect any information to create a proper policy for the device. I have to investigate everything manually, or even disable the local admin from the device. I can collect the events only after this, and it's very time consuming. In my case, it's a waste of resources."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"The product needs a streamlined user interface; improvements to the user interface can enhance user experience and make the solution more intuitive to navigate."
"Can be improved by allowing computers to be excluded from policies."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager can be better by making its UI more consistent."
"They need much better integration with Azure AD."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The product's threat protection and defense capabilities need enhancement."
"The console spins up relatively slowly, and some of the configuration items are obscure (e.g., reporting back one time per day is a default setting) and need to be tweaked."
"Reporting system could be improved."
"Technical support is not the best. It's hard to get a hold of them if we need help. It's something that definitely needs improvement."
"An updated UI would be nice, but is not hardly used."
"We need to have a stronger defense against CryptoLock and other attackers."
"It doesn't do anything proactive. The virus has to hit the machine before it detects it."
"The only complaint I have with Webroot is its inability to prevent UoD phishing and its inability to check against bots or block anti-attacks. Plus the URL server is in zero-definition."
"It would be nice if it had a feature for automatically generating reports on the client end for device status, security status and backup information."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Webroot Business Endpoint Protection Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 26 reviews while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is ranked 34th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 30 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0, while Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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 Webroot Business Endpoint Protection writes "Lightweight and not hard to set up however, does not offer good reporting". 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 Webroot Business Endpoint Protection is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Huntress, Intercept X Endpoint and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Webroot Business Endpoint Protection 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.
