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."The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is privileged threat analytics."
"It provides an accountability to the individuals who are using it, knowing that it is audited and tracked."
"It's secure and reliable. I especially appreciate that it's locked down and only allows access to authorized components."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is stable."
"Automates password management to remove the human chain weakness."
"The biggest feature is the security of the overall solution. It's very secure. The vaulting technology and the number of security layers involved in the vault, where privileged accounts are actually stored, is the heart of the solution."
"I really like the PTA (Privileged Threat Analytics). I find this the best feature."
"The solution is stable."
"It is a stable solution."
"Fortinet FortiClient is not disruptive, and its interface is great. It has an in-built VPN, which is very useful."
"It is very simple to use. I've used some of the others in the past, such as Cisco AnyConnect, which was a nightmare. I've used a couple of others, but FortiClient is very simple to use."
"You can scale the product."
"The initial setup of this solution is easy."
"What I like most about FortiClient is that it's easy to use. The way it displays information is very straightforward."
"The technical support from Fortinet and local vendors is good."
"FortiClient is very easy, useful, and practical."
"The authentication port is available in CyberArk Alero but not Fortinet products."
"PAM could be more user-friendly and CyberArk could update the documentation to include more real-world examples. You have to learn it yourself through trial and error. In particular, the online documentation should have more information about troubleshooting."
"Their post-sale support area requires a big improvement. Customers cannot automate tickets directly with CyberArk. They have to come through the distributor or bring in partners who have access to the support portal. Basically, the support for post-sales implementation is there, but the role of CyberArk is very minimal. Customers have to rely on partners, which sometimes creates issues. Some of the vendors help you during the implementation process, but the CyberArk support team does not do that. They have 24/7 support for our region, but they help only if there is an emergency or there is a problem with their system. If the password vault is down or the system is down, they provide immediate attention. For almost everything else, they take more time to respond. They give low priority to service-related or migration-related questions."
"The current interface is not very intuitive."
"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."
"The web interface has come a long way, but the PrivateArk client seems clunky and not intuitive. It could use an update to be brought up to speed with the usability of PVWA."
"Some aspects of the administration need improvement, though they have recently made improvements to the API. However, the management with the interface and configuration are not so user-friendly. It has not changed much during all the years that CyberArk has been on the market. The management part, like platform management as well as PSM connectors definition and management, could be improved, even if it has already been done with the API."
"The initial setup of CyberArk is a challenge if you do not have prior experience with it."
"There isn't much to improve in terms of features and comparison with other vendors. It just needs to stay more up to date in catching the malware. The user interface may be improved, which would be a minor enhancement. Unlike central management, in endpoint security, the end users don't need to keep looking at the endpoint user interface. The technology is the most important thing in endpoint security."
"As far as I can tell, the solution only has one single function, so they could expand its functionality."
"Compatibility issues between different versions."
"It would be interesting if the solution offered a way to try to investigate and create a use case to trace vectors."
"We've got one client where it was blocking the smartphones, and there's a way to set it up on Fortigate that's supposed to do that. However, it didn't work with them since they had a 2FA multi-factor."
"There should be more frequent releases or updates."
"The user interface on the central server could be improved."
"The solution could add data to the endpoint."
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.