We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiClient 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."Automates password management to remove the human chain weakness."
"DVR like video recording and text-based recording for easier audits."
"CyberArk PAM can be easily automated."
"All of the features of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager are valuable."
"Rather than multiple tools for maintaining regulatory compliance around passwords and privileged accounts, we have centralized as much as possible with CyberArk. This is now a one stop shop for end users to access their elevated credentials."
"We are able to know who is accessing what and when; having accountability."
"The most important feature is managing the credentials and implementing those policies which rotate the credentials. Session Manager is also key in not letting the users have access to those credentials. Instead, CyberArk actually manages everything by itself."
"All the features of CyberArk are useful for me, but the biggest one is that CyberArk has logs for all the features. That is important when there is a problem. You know where to look and you have the information. In cyber security, the most important aspect is information."
"Fortinet FortiClient's scalability is very good because it has no limitations."
"The product is user-friendly."
"The return on investment was very reasonable. It was low cost and it functioned, so the return on investment was excellent."
"The ability to reroute traffic from the user, connecting you to the internet rather than passing through our network area, is very useful."
"Having a centralized console is a valuable feature. The Fortinet fabric is also very valuable where all different pieces talk together to secure our network and track the North, South, East, and West movement of files and data through our network."
"You can scale the product."
"The initial setup is very good."
"For our clients with remote sites and deployed firewalls, the filtering and authentication features are very helpful."
"The current interface doesn't scale that well, and has some screens still in the old layout."
"The admin interface of the Password Vault Web Access (PVWA) is moving from an old style (the classic interface) to a new style (the v10 interface) and unfortunately, this process is quite slow."
"When I was a component owner for PAM's Privileged Threat Analytics (PTA) component, what I wanted was a clear mapping to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, a framework which has a comprehensive list of use cases. We reached out to the vendor and asked them how much coverage they have of the uses cases found on MITRE, which would have given us a better view of things while I was the product owner. Unfortunately they did not have the capability of mapping onto MITRE's framework at that time."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager could improve the integration with other solutions and ease of use. Additionally, there should be a feature to have remote connections without a VPN."
"The greatest area of improvement is with the user interface of the Password Vault Web Access component."
"This is probably a common thing, but they do ask for a lot of log files, a lot of information. They ask you to provide a lot of information to them before they're willing to give you anything at all upfront. It would be better if they were a little more give-and-take upfront: "Why don't you try these couple of things while we take your log files and stuff and go research them?" A little bit of that might be more helpful."
"The web access piece needs improvement. We have version 9.5 or 9.9.5, and now we have to upgrade to version 10."
"New functionalities and discovered bugs take longer to patch. We would greatly appreciate quicker development of security patches and bug corrections."
"We'd like to see a deployment wizard to help implementation become streamlined."
"I would like for the next release to be more user-friendly for users to do not have as much of a technical background."
"There is room for improvement by increasing the solution's knowledge base."
"The deployment status is not good in Mac devices and sometimes in Windows-based devices using GPO, like Active Directory, that are not on the local network."
"It would be nice to see more in hand features in terms of the DLP, so that the solution can be integrated with the DLP, as well as more reporting features on the end point."
"One area for improvement in FortiClient is the speed of connectivity."
"I would like to see an improvement in the web filter, because I think it can be more user-friendly."
"I don't think FortiClient is bad, but it's very buggy. We ran into some issues with the EMS, which amounted to more than 10 cases last year."
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 Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 16th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 85 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0. 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 Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". 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 Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Fortinet FortiEDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Fortinet FortiClient 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.