We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, Delinea, BeyondTrust and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM)."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."
"We've written over a hundred custom connectors ourselves that allow us to do all types of privileged session management for various applications. On top of that, the rest of the API-based central credential providers allow us to get away from credentials that may be hard-coded in the script or some application."
"It helps our customers in their software requirement imports."
"We found the initial setup to be easy."
"PSM (Privilege Session Manager."
"This solution is quite stable."
"The solution helps our developers access internal systems. It also helps us in Privilege Access Management."
"The key aspects of privileged access management are being able rotate passwords, make sure someone is accountable, and tie it back to a user (when the system is being used)."
"I work a lot with Fortinet products and I call the support often. They are very quick to respond and the support is very good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is RADIUS service and the social network integration feature."
"Valuable features include the robust SSO features, when you have more complicated authentication within an organization. We can mix AD, Radius, Portal, SSO Portals (Google, etc.), and build our own environment. It is very flexible."
"The initial setup is so easy and there is no problem in the implementation."
"The product is stable and reliable."
"The most valuable feature is the OTP on the mobile phone."
"The product’s most valuable feature is integration with FortiGate, FortiToken, FortiTalk, and multi-factor authentication."
"Fulfilled our requirement at a good price."
"If there is an area that has room for improvement, it's probably working with their support and getting people on the phone. That is hard to do with most products in general, but that seems to be the difficult area. The product is fantastic, but sometimes we want somebody on the phone."
"There is some stuff that we still have not fully integrated, which is our AIM solution. We are having all types of issues with it. I have been working with Level 3 support on it, but otherwise, from a functionality perspective, everything has been working except for the AIM solution."
"Stability is a huge concern right now. We are on a version which is very unstable. We have to upgrade to stabilize it. It is fine, but the problem is we have to hire CyberArk to do the upgrade. This costs money, and it is their bug."
"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 need a bit more education for our user community because they are not using it to its capabilities."
"I'm not a fan of technical support with CyberArk. It's like jumping through red tape and hoops. Quite frankly, it's almost like when you call CyberArk you get the Help Desk or the level-one. I'm a level-one. I got the CCD, I know how to do the initial troubleshooting. When I call CyberArk it's because I can't figure the problem out. So I need a level-two, three, four. I don't need you to tell me, "Hey, open a ticket and then give me logs.""
"Report creation could be improved. The policies could be more customized."
"CyberArk has to continue to evolve with that threat landscape to make sure that they're still protecting those credentials that are owned by those that have privileged accounts in the firms."
"We would like to see Linux-based operating systems be able to integrate with FortiAuthenticator to get two-factor authentication running on them. as well. This is a shortcoming that I have faced a few times already."
"The technical support team is bad."
"I would like to see more support from Fortinet with tech support people who have as much expertise on the authenticator as they do on their firewalls."
"We have issues with HA (high availability). These should be addressed in future releases."
"Lacks a simplified two-factor authentication process."
"Fortinet FortiAuthenticator's initial setup process could be easier."
"It does the job I paid for, but the graphical interface could be improved."
"The integration with other products, for example, some SAML authentications, would make it more flexible."
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 FortiAuthenticator is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 50 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Fortinet FortiAuthenticator 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 FortiAuthenticator writes "A reasonably priced solution that can be scaled toward different functionalities and offers flexible SMS messaging". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion and ARCON Privileged Access Management, whereas Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiToken, Microsoft Entra ID, Fortinet FortiNAC and Yubico YubiKey.
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.