At the time of the initial implementation (2013-2014), after looking at the field of available products, CyberArk PAM was significantly more mature than the other available products. For that reason, CyberArk PAM was selected.

CyberArk was our first venture into a secure password vault and was implemented at the recommendation of our federal customer.

CyberArk PAM was chosen before I got involved so I am not aware of which other products were evaluated. However, we have never had to go back and review the decision to use CyberArk.

I was not part of the evaluation process.

We started doing some comparisons of different tools and that's why we ended up switching to CyberArk, after discussions with both Thycotic and CyberArk. When looking at the capabilities, we ended up moving towards CyberArk. We felt it was a more mature solution and that some of the connectivity and reporting was done in a way that we would prefer, for a company of our size.

Thycotic is a good tool. A lot of IT people already understand the structure of how it runs. The upgradability is nice as well. You can just click an "upgrade" button and it upgrades the solution for you. The cons of Thycotic include the way that the recorded sessions are done. In addition, proxy server connections were not available. Maybe they are now, but at the time we were building out custom connectors and we had to go through a third party to get those developed. It was very bad and every step of the way was like pulling teeth. That really soured our relationship with them a bit because we couldn't seem to execute with that solution. When we started talking with them about what we needed it to do to make things easier, they ended up recommending a full redeploy. That's not ideal under any circumstances for anyone. That's why we took a step back and evaluated other solutions.

With CyberArk, some of the pros were that their sales team and engineers were very quick to come in and help us understand exactly what we needed. The deployment timeframe was  also much shorter. We didn't have to work through a third party, as we would have had to with Thycotic. And the type of relationship we've had with CyberArk is one that I wish we had with other vendors we use. They've been phenomenal working with us.

I believe other vendors were evaluated prior to selecting CyberArk.

We looked really hard at another option, but I can't remember their name. We almost went with them until we got the ISO involved, and they said, "We like CyberArk better because they're more flexible. They do more, even though it is going to be a little bit harder to manage." So, we reassessed and decided on CyberArk instead of the other solution. We had looked at a third one, but the third one wasn't close to CyberArk and the other one we evaluated. They just didn't have the breadth of capability of doing all the things we were looking for.

We did a real quick proof of concept of the other software, and then it changed names, which is why I can't remember it. We've been working on this for about three years now. We couldn't get traction with management to do anything. The thing that really got management interested was when ISO said, "We really need to do something here." Then management decided that they were willing to spend some money, but we did a really quick proof of concept with the other product. We installed it on a server, on-prem, and we did a quick run-through on some test servers that were immediately erased right after we finished the PoC, and it worked really well. It was also really easy to install, but it didn't have the flexibility to do all of the things that CyberArk is doing for us or will be doing for us in the end.

It provides the broadest point of view for privileged access management solutions in the market. We have tested several other proposals and tools for our customers and ourselves. There is a huge difference with using CyberArk.

We evaluated CA PAM and another solution. The main difference is that they cover just a part of the solution. They promise the solution will be very simple to deploy because they only have a simple appliance. However, they are actually really difficult to deploy for an entire project as well as give you value. We have experienced a lot of support and integration problems. You need to do a lot of things by yourself. Whereas, in CyberArk, you have plenty of plugins and developed material in the marketplace. 

This is the big difference at the moment. When you are deploying, it seems like a very simple project, and the other solutions will tell you, "Well, it's just an appliance," and then it becomes a nightmare. Whereas, CyberArk does what it does. You need to deploy several servers, but it works.

From time to time, people in the market are like, "Wow, it was born as a cloud-native solution." Sometimes, this is real and means something, but usually it is mostly a marketing thing. Why would we ignore all a solution's previous experience just for something born in the cloud? Most of the IT solutions that we use in the cybersecurity market are not born in the cloud. For instance, if you go with Securonix or Sentinel, there is a huge difference in the way they were conceived and the way they were born. Just because something is cloud-native or new doesn't mean that it is good. I wouldn't go for something that is cloud-native, just because it is.

We did look at multi-factor authentification options and zero-trust network access. 

I used to work on WALLIX Bastion, but CyberArk works better than WALLIX. WALLIX is a PAM solution, a French version, but when I was at another job I was a consultant on both WALLIX and CyberArk at the same time. That's when I saw that CyberArk is better.

It is simpler to upgrade the CyberArk environment and components than WALLIX. CyberArk has a user interface but WALLIX does not because WALLIX is installed on Linux while CyberArk is installed on Windows, making it user-friendly. Connecting is also simple with CyberArk. When a user connects to the PVWA, there aren't a lot of buttons. When users see the icon, they click "Connect" and connect. It is simple for them.

CyberArk can adapt easily to environments. For example, when we talk about connectors, CyberArk can easily connect to all the target machines these days. CyberArk can onboard network machines, Windows Servers, Linux servers, and Oracle Databases.

Web application passwords can be rotated. With its PSM and Selenium features, it enables the connection of a web application to CyberArk and rotation of passwords, so that it's not system accounts all the time. We can manage the web application accounts as well. CyberArk can also connect to the cloud.

We looked at other products like Delinia and Wallix.

This was our first foray into the PAM space. We did a proof of concept evaluating three different solutions, so CyberArk was the clear winner. I don't want to speak ill of any other solutions, but I will say that CyberArk's architecture was much more secure. Other competing solutions may leverage an agent that is installed on your local machine and runs your privileged applications locally, leaving a lot to be desired from a security perspective. 

CyberArk uses remote desktop gateways similar to Microsoft's RDS functionality, and it abstracts that privileged application from your workstation. So even if you're compromised, a malicious actor on your laptop or workstation would not be able to get to that privileged application. This was very valuable to us. Other solutions did not have that functionality.

I haven't compared it to Thycotic yet, however, from what I have read, it looks like CyberArk is better. I've also looked into Delinea.

I've evaluated WALLIX, apart from CyberArk Privileged Access Manager.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is a global solution that applies to all customers, from small scale to enterprise businesses, but the solution has a little bit more servers that you need for the installation. WALLIX, on the other hand, is just one appliance that focuses on small-scale customers. Its deployment is much easier because you just install one appliance with all the features inside. Deployment is easier with WALLIX versus CyberArk Privileged Access Manager which has a complex deployment. In the end, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager has more features that you can define or set up, while WALLIX has some limitations.

CyberArk's architecture is peculiar. It is the most secure on the market because they have a hard-end computer out of the domain that stores passwords with multiple cryptography. Then, there are the default components that dialogue with Password Vaults. Only CyberArk has this. The other solutions usually give you an encrypted database on an appliance, and this is a very different scenario. Therefore, CyberArk has an inherently secure architecture.

Broadcom PAM is not as stable versus CyberArk. 

As part of our company's policies, we have to evaluate other solutions.

We have tested a great deal of products, many of which are being used in the company for various other purposes; Avecto, Dell, Thycotic, to name a few. Centrify was the other primary system that we really carefully reviewed. In the end, the features and interface of CyberArk won out.

Bomgar was one of its competitors, now it is called BeyondTrust. Another competitor was Thycotic. 

While CyberArk PAM has survived, it needs to be more flexible. They are currently focusing on the solution's GUI, but rather than the GUI, they need to focus on the solution's internal aspects, e.g., making the steps a bit easier. There are too many things to focus on and be aware of. So, they need to streamline it in a way where it is more compact.

We looked at several different vendors and conducted detailed POCs on each to ensure we were getting what we needed.

We did some benchmarking, without the tools, to compare the cost of maintenance and functionality. We compared CyberArk to Password Manager Pro from ManageEngine. CyberArk has more functionality and better stability, in our opinion. The price was very similar between the two solutions. 

In a previous life, I worked with TPAM, Quest products, and Safeguard. We evaluated five different toolsets when it came to my new role here — all the major players. The last two were Quest and CyberArk and I had a strong relationship with both groups. A lot of it came down to dollars and cents, but CyberArk also had that marketplace that told us that we could do certain things out-of-the-box. That was very important to us, enabling us to get stakeholders' buy-in: strategic alliances within our customers or the companies that we own. We got them bought-in to the idea that they were going to be using this tool. It came down to the marketplace.

Avecto was the competitor. They integrated with McAfee ePO, which was our endpoint solution at the time. Unfortunately, it was not as robust as I thought it would be. I didn't like it. I felt like the product relied too much on McAfee to do what it needed to do. Whereas, CyberArk was a standalone client which was way more robust.

The competition was utilizing a product that we are getting rid of in two weeks.

BeyondTrust, Hitachi ID, CA.

Unfortunately, I have not participated in evaluating other options.

I have previous experience with BeyondTrust. And, there are other products, such as Lieberman and Arcos, which are being used in the Indian market because of its cost effectiveness.

The team that I'm on, we weren't leading up the investigative part. Our security group did that. They're the ones who brought CyberArk to us and said, "This is the one we're going to go with." There was actually another entity within our corporate parent company that had already been using it for about nine months before we did. We adopted it from there. Since then, another entity has adopted it as well.

My company evaluated other options, but I was not with the company when this occurred.

Before, I used to work as a system integrator. I looked into other PAM solutions, like ARCON and BeyondTrust.

I've spent some time with BeyondTrust. I've spent some time with Centrify. I've had their products in for different instances and different purposes. They play an interesting concentric role in some of the areas that they focus on, but I wouldn't say I have one-to-one experience in other product sets.

We looked at Leiberman, and also at Thycotic Secret Server.

One main things that stood out about CyberArk would be the actual user interface. CyberArk's interface was better than the other two, and their price points were fairly similar. The usability and functionality were similar, so we looked at it from a user standpoint (the front-end of the tool), and CyberArk came out on top.

We did not evaluate other solutions. We automatically went with CyberArk.

I do not have much experience with other solutions, so I don't think I can adequately compare and contrast it with others.

In case of CyberArk, No .. Never.

No.

I was not involved in the acquisition process, but I know that sometimes a Hitachi solution is considered.

Before we chose CyberArk, we evaluated ARCOS.

After evaluating several vendors, we found that CyberArk met our needs.

We evaluated Thycotic and one other.

We evaluated alternatives, but nothing compares.

I cannot tell what other options were evaluated.

Before choosing this product, we also evaluated Dell and NetIQ.

I was using CyberArk for more than six years and I have now switched to ARCOS. I was impressed with ARCOS because of the following reasons:

• Cost-effective solution
• Fewer servers required
• Flexibility, performance
• More features
• Simple licensing
• Good support

I evaluated other solutions such as Leiberman, ManageEngine, TPAM, and Xceedium.

ARCOS seems to be very promising and cost effective. Also, ARCOS doesn’t have a traditional jump server concept, which saves the customer from spending more on hardware. The licensing is very simple (number of admins & target IPs), where most of the features are available by default with the basic license.

There were a few competitors we evaluated like CA Technologies, Arcos, Oracle, and Microsoft.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options (being a partner, not customer).

I was not part of the selection process.

Yes, we evaluate other options. The issue was about price, stability, scalability and the development of this product to ensure support.

All other top solutions in the Gartner Magic Quadrant were evaluated and CyberArk came up as the best and most mature choice. I compared all solutions using my client business requirements and what the solutions offered to them on the top of the business requirements. The scope of the project became wider.

Yes, based on Gartner

We looked at other solutions such as CA PAM, Lieberman Software, Thycotic and ARCOS.

We also looked at BalaBit Shell Control Box.

At present, we are only focusing on CyberArk for privilege account security. Comparing it to other providers, Cyberark provides a more user-friendly environment with many more features and benefits.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

We didn’t look at alternatives.

Yes, we did a research and chose CyberArk above all due to its components that were suitable to our environment.

I have previous experience with Oracle in the past. There is an ease of use with Oracle, because it is small and not very complex. You can wrap your work in a single day with Oracle. In comparison, the API is quite small with CyberArk. But, the product itself is so robust.

Before choosing this product, I also I evaluated NetIQ PIM, Dell TPAM, CA PIM and ARCOS.

We also evaluate other solutions in the Magic Quadrant for PAM solutions.

The great thing about this solution is that they offer tech support in my language. 

I didn't evaluate any other options.

I did not consider any other options. 

Yes, there was a POC which took place among BeyondTrust, Thycotic and CyberArk.

Centrify and Lieberman ERPM.

I worked in the CyberArk distribution company. However, I have seen that other products do not provide all the features that CyberArk can provide.