We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and PingID 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 regulation of accounts is by far the most needed and valuable part of the application."
"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."
"The password management feature is valuable."
"You can easily manage more than 4000 accounts with one PSM."
"You can gradually implement CyberArk, starting with more easily attainable goals."
"For a while, there were individual IDs having privileged access. We wanted to restrict that. We implemented the solution so that it can be more of internal control. We can have session recordings happening and reduce our attacks."
"We know when passwords will be expiring so we can force users to change their passwords, as well as requiring specific password requirements for length, complexity, etc."
"It allows users to self-provision access to the accounts that they need."
"It gets a mobility portal in place in conjunction with Office 365. It provides very good possibilities and it's much better than other technology that we have used before which was unstable and slower."
"The solution is stable. We haven't experienced any bugs or glitches."
"The soundness of the solution is its most valuable feature. For example, if you are in our corporate network, you can log on without any traffic interfering."
"It is a scalable solution...It is a stable solution."
"The only feature we were looking for in PingID was SSO integration with our existing web app."
"The mobile biometric authentication option improved user experience. It's always about security because, with two-factor authentication, it's always a separate device verifying the actual user logging in."
"We use the product to run different reports."
"It's pretty stable as a product."
"Some aspects of the administration need improvement, though they have recently made improvements to the API. However, the management with the interface and configuration are not so user-friendly. It has not changed much during all the years that CyberArk has been on the market. The management part, like platform management as well as PSM connectors definition and management, could be improved, even if it has already been done with the API."
"Some of the additional features that we are looking at are in the Conjur product. I am specifically discussing key management, API Keys, and things for connecting applications in the CI/CD pipelines."
"There is a lot of room for improvement in the report section. I also work on other tools, such as Thycotic, which allows you to create customized reports for your organization's needs. In CyberArk, there are limited reports, whereas in Thycotic or some of the other PAM tools, because the database is different, you can customize the report based on your needs through SQL queries."
"The current interface doesn't scale that well, and has some screens still in the old layout."
"Many of the infrastructure folks who use the product dislike it because it complicates their workflow. They get a little less control, and they have to go through a specific solution. It proactively logs in for them, which obfuscates some of the issues that they may be troubleshooting."
"The initial setup has room for improvement to be more straightforward."
"The web access piece needs improvement. We have version 9.5 or 9.9.5, and now we have to upgrade to version 10."
"It can be integrated with other systems, but it is not easy to integrate. It takes too long to integrate it. Its integration should be easier and simpler."
"PingID's device management portal should be more easily accessible via a link. They provide no link to the portal like they do for the service. The passwordless functionality could be more comprehensive. You can't filter based on hardware devices. Having that filtering option would be great. Device authentication would be a great feature."
"We have encountered instances where it is not easy to do authentication."
"It has a long way to go until it is a cloud-based solution."
"PingID classifies the type of environment into internal and external, which is an area for improvement because you need to take additional steps to trust internal and external users."
"The management console needs to be improved. PingID should revise it."
"I think that the connection with like Microsoft Word, especially for Office 365, is a weak point that could be improved."
"They could use some bio-certification. It's just more user-friendly and more convenient than entering the one time passes. That would be an improvement."
"PingID should put a little more effort into making a pretty self-explanatory deck about their tech features and the services they offer."
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 PingID is ranked 7th in Authentication Systems with 14 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while PingID is rated 8.4. 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 PingID writes " A robust cloud-based multi-factor solution with a good customer support team". 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 PingID is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, ForgeRock, PingFederate, SailPoint IdentityIQ and IBM Security Verify Access. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. PingID 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.