We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Digital Guardian 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."
"The product is for hardening access and making the organization more secure, therefore reducing chances of a breach."
"The automatic rotation of credentials is probably the most useful feature."
"I find value in notifications from CyberArk when passwords fail verification and have other issues."
"Allows secure, logged access to highly sensitive servers and services."
"We have demoted a lot of domain admins and taken a lot of that away from people, giving it a shared account structure."
"It is useful for protecting passwords. If you need to do access security management, you can first use the CyberArk console, and after that, you can connect the firewall interface or firewall command line. Similarly, if you need to do an RDP session, you need to first log in to CyberArk before connecting to the Windows RDP session. This way, the admin doesn't know the password, and that password is changed immediately. To change the password, you first discover the old password in the network, and after that, you can change the password."
"On the EBB user side, we were able to secure all the server root passwords and admin for Windows. This was a big win for us."
"There is a built-in endpoint detection response that helps save money."
"It has the added advantage of offering forensic analysis."
"I like the solution's adaptive inspection and container inspection."
"It can scale from 100 to 10,000. There's no problem with the scalability."
"The most valuable feature of Digital Guardian is its reputation. They have scored high on the Gartner Magic Quadrant."
"In Digital Guardian, they have the cloud correlation servers that give you visibility work like EBR and the correlation server works very well for security analysis."
"The feature we call desktop recording is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Not only can we collect data from the user's usage, but we also capture his screenshots when he is trying to steal the data."
"Some of the features that are highly appreciated are its robust data loss prevention capabilities, flexible deployment options, and the ability to monitor data transfer across multiple vectors."
"It is web-based, but other competitors have apps. We need to get there. It is just smoother to have an app. You don't have all the bugs from having a browser, and people like them better, since you can get to them via mobile."
"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."
"We found a lot of errors during the initial setup. They should work to improve the implementation experience and to remove errors from the process."
"Over the past seven years, I have seen a lot of ups and downs with the product."
"I would love them to improve their UI customizing features."
"They can do a better job in the PSM space."
"The greatest area of improvement is with the user interface of the Password Vault Web Access component."
"I'd like to see a more expansive SSH tunneling situation through PSMP. Right now you have an account that exists in the vault and you say, "I want to create a tunnel using this account." I'd like to see something that is not account-based where I could say, "I want to create a tunnel to this machine over here," and then authenticate through the PSMP and then your tunnel is set up. You wouldn't need to then authenticate to a machine."
"When considering potential areas for improvement, it may be beneficial for Digital Guardian to optimize its processes and reduce the computational demands on the system, particularly with regard to high CPU usage. Although Digital Guardian offers numerous benefits, it can consume a substantial amount of RAM and CPU power."
"I would like to see the workflow, to get all the rules and policies set up, be less complicated."
"Some features on Mac and Linux are not complete currently. For example, some device control features haven't been transferred over to the other systems. If they could have their Windows features also available on Mac and Linux, that would be perfect. Some of our customers have a Mac environment for their RD environment. Having the solution fully capable of handling everything in a Mac environment is crucial."
"The solution has complexities around policy creation and deployment."
"If the client uses Windows 10 or 11 and Microsoft updates the operating system's version, Digital Guardian must update their product to match compatibility."
"The initial setup is a bit more complex than other solutions."
"The room for improvement with Digital Guardian is that it will be better with the Linux agent because it is the only DLP solution for Linux workstations. It still needs to upgrade the agents to the latest version for the Linux kernel."
"Digital Guardian is an excellent solution but our experience with the partner has been the most horrible experience we have ever had with any partner."
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 Digital Guardian is ranked 10th in Data Loss Prevention (DLP) with 11 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Digital Guardian is rated 7.4. 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 Digital Guardian writes "Highly customizable, helpful support, and multiple modules available". 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 Digital Guardian is most compared with Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Digital Guardian 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.
