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."This is a complete solution that can detect cyber attacks well."
"It is very simple to use."
"Technical support is very helpful whenever we have any questions."
"Lessens the risk with privileged access."
"The fact that I can put my vault here in a central location on one net for example, and I'll have a CPM in California, a CPM in Texas, a CPM in New York, a CPM in Florida, and actually be able to grow with my company and not necessarily have to continue to grow my vault until I get to a certain number accounts - yet I can still manage everything across the country, if not the world - I love that. I love the flexibility and the capability of being able to pull those components out."
"CyberArk has the ability to change the credentials on every platform."
"It has helped from an auditing perspective identify who has access to privileged accounts."
"You can easily manage more than 4000 accounts with one PSM."
"I have not actually called their support line, because we have a direct contact to a senior engineer in the company for any issues that we handle with them. I will say they are very responsive, and they do give you the information you need when you need it."
"It has the ability to create Palo Alto VM-series using software."
"The tool's cloud version makes application migration easy."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"It is nice to have a rock solid security platform that we can count on."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the zero-trust security architecture."
"With the improved visibility we now have, the traffic is being properly monitored, which means that we are better able to manage it. These are improvements that we saw very quickly."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"They are sometimes not flexible with things. For instance, from one day to another, there might be something that had been done years ago by CyberArk, then they say, "We do not support that." You then have to initiate a complaint and start working with them. Things might become complicated and months pass while you are working with them. Usually, they are good and fast, but sometimes they seem to be blocked with problems, e.g., you will suddenly be working with another team instead of the team that you were working with the day before."
"We don't often contact technical support, but when we do it, the response could be faster and better."
"It needs better documentation with more examples for the configuration files and API/REST integration"
"Report creation could be improved. The policies could be more customized."
"More additional features as far as the REST is concerned, because we have something which was the predecessor to REST. A lot of the features which were in the predecessor have not necessarily been ported over to REST yet."
"Currently, in Secure Connect, an end user is required to enter account information manually, and cannot save any of this information for future use."
"What could be improved in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the licensing model. It should be more flexible in terms of the users. Currently, it's based on the number of users, but many users only log in once in four months or once in five months. It would be great if the licensing model could be modified based on user needs. We even have users who have not logged in even once."
"The solution could improve by adding more connectors."
"The product could provide protection above Layer 3, which gets into the application layer and provides better visibility into those aspects of application security."
"Just sometimes it can be a bit sluggish navigating through pages. That is just purely because of Java."
"The solution needs to improve its visibility. It's not straightforward to use. Understanding the policies, authorizations, and initializing features requires careful review. The product needs to offer proper training."
"It would be helpful if we had a direct number for the support manager or the supporting engineer. That would be better than having to email every time because there would be less wait."
"The implementation should be simplified."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"It can definitely improve on the performance."
"The product needs improvement in their Secure Access Service Edge."
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.