We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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."It's secure and reliable. I especially appreciate that it's locked down and only allows access to authorized components."
"We are able to know who is accessing what and when; having accountability."
"You can gradually implement CyberArk, starting with more easily attainable goals."
"The password vault and session monitoring are useful."
"You can easily manage more than 4000 accounts with one PSM."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the vault. I am satisfied with the interface and the documentation."
"We have been able to manage application credentials in CyberArk, whether they come as a custom plugin or straight out-of-the-box."
"We are able to rotate credentials and have privileged account access."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten since we never faced any issues."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides."
"Installing this product as a datacenter firewall for segregation and segmentation, and also configuring policies between zones has improved my organization."
"You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs."
"The solution is easy to use and the Panorama feature is good. The software management or the malware blocking and some authentication management system are good."
"The analysis is very fast."
"We would, of course, always prefer it if the pricing was cheaper."
"Its pricing is a big challenge here. When it started, the product came in at a very low cost. Now, they are the leaders in the market, so the cost has grown and is quite huge."
"In the beginning, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager didn't have a multifactor authentication feature, so that was an area for improvement, but now it's part of the solution. Having just one console for two CyberArk products would be good, particularly for the CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and the CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, with the latter being a product for endpoint management that supports the workstations and allows you to manage workstations. In the next update of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, it would be good to have a local agent where you can manage all users and processes, and have an agent on the servers such as Linux and Windows."
"The documentation is rather basic and it is missing many use cases."
"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."
"Currently, in Secure Connect, an end user is required to enter account information manually, and cannot save any of this information for future use."
"The initial setup of CyberArk is a challenge if you do not have prior experience with it."
"I think having a distributed architecture would certainly help this solution."
"The price could be better."
"The solution can improve its traffic management."
"The cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"The configuration should be made a little bit easier. I understand why it is as it is, but there should be a way to make it easier from the user side."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"The support is good but they could be faster."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
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 WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". 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 WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection and Juniper SRX Series Firewall. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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.