We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and NetWitness Platform 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."When we started with RPA, there was a requirement that every credential and the bots themselves be protected through the PAM system. From the get-go, we've had CyberArk in the middle... We've got a pretty robust RPA implementation with our PAM platform. Users, bots, the credentials — everything is managed via our PAM solution."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the vault. I am satisfied with the interface and the documentation."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"Right off the bat, the most valuable feature is the DNA scan. It gives us the ability to scan our environment and find the accounts that we're going to need to take under control."
"We are able to know who is accessing what and when; having accountability."
"The voice technology is very good."
"There are no issues with scalability. Our clients are very happy to use the product."
"The newer 11.5 version that my team is using has found it to have good mapping."
"The most valuable features are its ingestion of logs and raising of alerts based on those logs."
"Possibility to investigate incidents based on logs and raw packets, such as extracting files sent over the network"
"The most valuable feature is the ability to write rules and triggers for network communication, and then being able to investigate based on that."
"It gives the ability to investigate into network traffic in the Net and the organization what we couldn't do before."
"The most valuable features are the packet inspection and the automated incident response."
"The most valuable feature is the hunting ability to work in a CERT."
"The software is scalable to whatever is required, and you can also put a lot of resources in the cloud."
"Initial setup is complex. Lots of architecture, lots of planning, and lots of education and training are needed."
"Sometimes the infrastructure team is hesitant to provide more resources."
"New functionalities and discovered bugs take longer to patch. We would greatly appreciate quicker development of security patches and bug corrections."
"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 current interface doesn't scale that well, and has some screens still in the old layout."
"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."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager could improve the integration docking, it should have more layers. For example, integration with OpenShift."
"The major pain point that we have is the capacity of CyberArk due to the sheer volume of NPAs that we are managing. We are a large organization and we have hundreds of thousands of non-personal accounts to manage. We have already found out that there are certain capacity limitations within CyberArk that might introduce performance issues. From my perspective, something that would be valuable would be if the vault could hold more passwords and be more scalable."
"I believe that integrating the solution with other products such as Oracle would be beneficial."
"The initial setup is complex. There are other solutions that are easier to implement."
"The user interface is a little bit difficult for new users and it needs to be improved."
"I'd like to see improvement in its ease of use. It's basically unusable. It's overly complex."
"If we have the ability to run a dynamic analysis through malware in the same suite, it would be great to have a sandbox solution to analyze malware through dynamic analysis."
"The initial setup was complex because it takes a lot of time to complete the implementation."
"There are instances where you try to run the reports and then it does not give you the desired outcome."
"Nowadays, their support is a little subpar compared to other solutions. I rate RSA support six out of 10."
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 NetWitness Platform is ranked 30th in Log Management with 35 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while NetWitness Platform 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 NetWitness Platform writes "Can find out if there is lateral movement, but integration and workflow need improvement". 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 NetWitness Platform is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, RSA enVision, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel and Cisco Secure Network Analytics. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. NetWitness Platform 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.