We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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 combination of CPM and PSM resolves a lot of use cases."
"It helps our customers in their software requirement imports."
"The Password Upload Utility tool makes it easier when setting up a Safe that contains multiple accounts and has cut down the amount of time that it takes to complete the task."
"It is very simple to use."
"We have accomplished our security goals. We have two-factor authenticated and vaulted our important accounts, so people can't just steal stuff from us."
"It improves security in our company. We have more than 10,000 accounts that we manage in CyberArk. We use these accounts for SQLs, Windows Server, and Unix. Therefore, keeping these passwords up-to-date in another solution or software would be impossible. Now, we have some sort of a platform to manage passwords, distribute the inflow, and manage IT teams as well as making regular changes to it according to the internal security policies in our bank."
"We also use CyberArk’s Secrets Manager. Because AWS is the biggest area for us, we have accounts in AWS that are being rotated by CyberArk. We also have a manual process for the most sensitive of our AWS accounts, like root accounts. We've used Secrets Manager on those and that has resulted in a significant risk reduction, as well."
"Right off the bat, the most valuable feature is the DNA scan. It gives us the ability to scan our environment and find the accounts that we're going to need to take under control."
"What I like about the VM-Series is that you can launch them in a very short time."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is easy to maintain...From a security point of view, I find Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to be a better product compared to the other solutions in the market."
"It is very stable. It is fairly easy to use."
"Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view."
"It allows us to see all our traffic to properly secure it and only allow what is needed through the firewall."
"You already can scale it if you put it in Auto Scaling groups. If you put it in a load balancer, it should already be able to scale."
"In the newer version, there are 3850s, all of them are scalable. They fit better into the medium or small businesses."
"The feature that I have found the most useful is that it meets all our requirements technically."
"It can be made user-friendly, in the sense of the console is pretty outdated."
"Overall what I would really love to see is the third-party PAS reporter tool pulled more into the overall solution, ideally as its own deployable component service installation package."
"Over the past seven years, I have seen a lot of ups and downs with the product."
"It's hard to find competent resellers/support."
"We had an issue with the Copy feature... Apparently, in version 10, that Copy feature does not work. You actually have to click Show and then copy the password from within Show and then paste it. We've had a million tickets and we had to figure out a workaround to it."
"One of the main things that could be improved would be filtering accounts on the main page and increasing the functionality of the filters. There are some filters on the side which are very specific, but I feel there could be more."
"Sometimes the infrastructure team is hesitant to provide more resources."
"I would like to see improvement in the custom connector for integration with different devices."
"The disadvantage with Palo Alto is that they don't have a cloud-based solution that includes a secure web gateway."
"Integrative capabilities with other solutions should be addressed."
"The only minor issue we've faced is with the app's ID configuration, which requires specific matching for application filtering."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"There's room for improvement in terms of integration with the load balancer. It isn't like Fortinet, which has a load balancer built into its firewall. It is effortless to integrate within the load balancer-plus-firewall solution."
"The reporting part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The product could provide protection above Layer 3, which gets into the application layer and provides better visibility into those aspects of application security."
"I would like a way to do everything programmatically, or be able to copy the configs from different prices at different levels."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 142 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. 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 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". 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 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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.