There are different categories out there when it comes to scalability. In the case of bringing in new target systems, then sure, you can bring in what you need based on your licensing criteria. In terms of bringing in target systems which are not covered by the list of connectors that you have, this too is possible as there is scope for customization. Overall, I think it's fairly scalable and it does give decent support on the scalability front.

Our onboarding is progressing smoothly and at a steady pace. With the onboarding, you have new users coming on, and because it's a central solution, the rollout is global. There are even plans for extending the department in terms of increasing the redundancy of components, which is largely determined by operational performance reviews and so forth.

This product seems to be scalable to any size. Providing vault cluster services, distributed vaults, and DR vault implementations, the product is truly ready for global implementation.

We currently store over 50,000 privileged passwords, and I know if our network doubled tomorrow, the product would scale to meet the increased demand.

We have not run into any scaling issues.

Its scalability is good.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is deployed on-premises in the company, so I'm unable to comment on scalability, but they do have a software as a service model, so that's scalable.

The solution is very scalable, however, with scale, there are certainly performance considerations.

The scalability is very good. I'm surprised they keep as many logs and video recordings as they do on their side. But scalability hasn't been a problem. If we wanted to scale up, we could certainly do so. All we would have to do is add more servers on our side, with our PSMs (Privileged Session Managers). The way the solution is built out, you can expand it elastically pretty easily.

We have around 400 users right now who are mostly in IT. There are developers, database administrators, as well as our Active Directory enterprise teams, and some of our cloud implementation and infrastructure teams. We have some in incident response people, from information security, who use it as well.

We're looking to expand it in the coming year. We've already started that expansion. It's the developers we're targeting next and there are a lot of them. We're looking at a couple of hundred more users within a year.

The solution is fairly scalable, although depending on how far and wide you stretch your footprint, you may be better suited to multiple smaller vaults and component environments, than one large pot.

It is an extremely scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. In our organization, there are ten CyberArk users; they all are system administrators. 

It certainly appears to be scalable. Because we're still in the rollout stage, we don't know for sure, but it doesn't look like there will be an issue with scaling.

Its usage is limited to under 50 people. There are 12 people in my group. SSA has another 8, and the service desk has probably 20. Then, the Information Security Office probably has another 15 or so. Overall, we're under 50. We're only looking at privileged accounts and not everything.

Scalability is fantastic. It has been really easy to scale. In fact, most of our customers who start, or have doubts about how to start, we propose to them, "Well, if you are not sure or don't have the budget right now, you can start with a small deployment, then we will grow." It easily grows and you can add components. 

Other customers have started with a small CPD deployment, then replicated. We put high availability on another CPD. It is really good for public clouds.

We have some customer environments that are over 10,000 servers as well as some environments with more than 50,000 managed identities.

It is very easily scalable. 

We have 50 admins on this solution. 

We are using the solution to 70% capacity. We do plan to increase usage. 

The solution performs well, however, based on the user base may require a sizable footprint.

CyberArk PAM is scalable. Managing 80,000 accounts is almost as easy as managing a thousand. 

We found that scalability was much easier in CyberArk. In BeyondTrust, scalability required purchasing extra virtual machines every time we wanted to scale it up. However, in CyberArk, we don't need to purchase extra components. It comes along with the line.

Currently, we have around 78 to 80 admins, and there are around 200 underlying accounts. 

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is easy to scale. You can divide the solution into different parts and connect them, then you can add a new feature, a new appliance, or a new system. The solution works.

It has good scalability. Though, because the architecture is modular, you must plan a bit. In terms of performance, it is very scalable, but you need to pay attention to the architecture because it is not like having Kubernetes that moves laterally. While you can deploy it in a second, you need to be careful. 

We have more than 100 people on the solution right now. 20 to 30 are likely admins. 

The solution is scalable. We can increase licenses as needed. 

In terms of the product's ability to manage all our access requirements at scale, about 80 percent of it can be managed. There is no product in the market which can say, "We can do 100 percent, we can do everything." Or, they say that they can, but when it comes to it, it doesn't really happen. But with CyberArk, we've had the benefit of it being a little scalable, plus very easy to configure for the different use cases we have. So we can cover around 80 percent. But then we have to put some compensating controls around the other 20 percent.

It has scaled for our use cases. We built it according to the very large specification and it has scaled. It has done exactly what we need it to do. We've not yet had a performance issue to date.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution.

Scalability has not been a problem. I have worked on multiple improvements and increases, as we continuously increase the number of domains and types of accounts CyberArk manages. There is not currently an end in sight for the number and types of accounts we are adding.

I would rate scalability an eight out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's fairly scalable.

The solution is extremely scalable.

The scalability of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is very good.

We have approximately 300 users using the solution.

Its scalability is good. It is available on-premise and they started having a cloud three or four years back.

Our environment is very small. We are managing around 2,000 users. Whereas, I have seen it managing users of 10,000 to 15,000 servers. We have around 30,000 users, and I have seen that kind of environment, though what I am currently managing is much less. When it comes to the Middle East, it is always regionally focused, it is not international. Our organization is specific to one country and not international.

This solution is very scalable from what we have seen.

Scalability is impressive because you can set up clusters, so you can grow as your needs grow.

25 people are using the solution.

The solution is scalable. It’s on the cloud, which makes it simple.

We have more than 2000 users, and it's really easy to scale.

It is easily scalable. In terms of usage, it is being used by all of IT. We have over 500 users utilizing the solution. We're always adding new people and features, so its usage is increasing every day. We plan to implement more types of accounts. 

According to the information that I have, we simply add more servers if we need it or have additional business requirements. So, scalability is high.

There are about 155 users. Mostly, they are our IT administrators and developers.

This tool is used daily in our bank. We don't have plans to increase usage right now.

In terms of scaling, we're not there yet. We have a number of offices, we're a small company but we're spread globally and we're installing servers in Brazil. We also have servers in London, so we can scale geographically quite easily because it's applications running on servers. There's also a DR capability, having those vaults where needed, so we can scale that way.

There are a lot of new things coming out about endpoints, and third-party management is going to be big. We can scale geographically and we can scale outside of our borders and that's going to be cool.

It is pretty scalable. It should meet our needs in the future.

There are growing pains from integrating a software which allows you to do anything, and you could do anything but it is based on your environment. The software can do whatever it wants, but it is going to be reactive to your environment. Everyone will have a different experience. 

If this was a perfect world, you had a clean active directory environment, your SCCM solution was fantastic, and there were no firewall issues, the product would deploy. No problem. Read everything, and you are good to go.

I could definitely understand. It is like designing the program for how it should work, then dealing with real life scenarios. You talk to any company here, and everyone's active directory is a mess. That is where you are trying to get your data from. That is where you struggle sometimes. However, the software is great. The Dev guys are on it as far as upgrades, etc.

If they keep upgrading the software, they are going to be around for a long-time. We are a long-time customer. We have multiple products, and they are going towards the right direction because if we own three or four of their products, then we can meld them all into one and they all work together, which is great.

We think it is good. That is why we moved to it.

It's a scalable product. For example, in my scenario, the deployment that I have done, if I want to scale it up or if I want to extend it, I can easily add the next module in that. There are no challenges regarding scalability.

I have only one deployment in Pakistan. It is at one of the largest banks in Pakistan here which has thousands of users on CyberArk.

Every organization is different. Some are small, some are large, and some are medium-sized. This product fits all organizations. It is designed to be scalable. 

It is scalable. Our customers are enterprises with a minimum of 2,000 users and maybe 100 admin users.

Scalability is good because of the big variety of modules. Except for the redundancy which is quite limited with the not live replication. Also, the speed is quite slow for application accounts.

The scaling has been mostly positive. It seems not hard to scale it up.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 150,000 people are using the solution.

It's pretty scalable. Although we haven't increased our infrastructure once, we have installed the latest version. Even then, adding other infrastructure items into the portfolio is not a big deal once you have done the initial installation.

Our organization is more than 30,000 to 35,000 people. However, only a handful of them are entitled to Privileged Access Management. There might be only 5,000 users. It is used quite extensively.

The scalability provided by this solution is a lot better than some of the other available products on the market.

With respect to scalability, it depends upon how much scalability you need in the moment. 

We haven't scaled it up much since we took it on. From everything I've seen, I think scalability should be excellent. You can spin up as many component servers as you need to get the job done. Obviously, at some point, licensing is going to come into that. I don't see how scalability would be any kind of problem for anyone. I think you can make it as big or as little as you need it to be.

It has the ability to scale out. We have scaled out quite a bit with our product and use of it to get to multiple locations and businesses, so it has the breadth to do that.

CyberArk is incredibly scalable. Make sure to check out the unlimited option.

The scalability is incredible. They just released Marketplace, and they are constantly releasing updates to the components and adding new components, like Conjur. This is something that we ran into with Secret Server and DevOps, so it is already scalable, but becoming more so in the future.

I would rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten. The tool is scalable.

The solution is very scalable. The landscape gets improved every day. It is scalable because it integrates with Azure, AWS, and other cloud solutions. Also, we have modules that work for DevOps, Secrets Manager, and Endpoint Privilege Manager. So, CyberArk is not just a PAM. It covers most of the products in the threat landscape. We do not worry about scalability in terms of CyberArk.

Scalability is a function of both technology growth, and integration capability.  CyberArk has not only continued to advance the infrastructure robustness of their software solutions, but through the C3 alliance they have also created integration opportunities with other IT Security and Access Mgmt products that allow companies to provide a full ecosystem of IT controls within their organizations.    This also provides an opportunity for companies to consider best of breed products, like CyberArk, and not have to restrict their decisions to a small set of technology tools that do not provide comprehensive Privileged Access Services.

The environment is very easy to scale out. Especially running the CPM and PSM components in a load balanced virtual environment gives you the flexibility to quickly expand the environment.

Scalability is pretty good. I have not had any issues with it. It should meet my company's needs in the future.

I have worked with both CyberArk and what was formerly Xceedium and is now CA PAM, and in my opinion, I'm gung-ho CyberArk. CA PAM is not scalable like that at all. I love the fact that the different components can be installed in multitude or in singularity on different servers.

I understand the concept of it being an appliance, and technically it is an appliance because of how CyberArk hardens everything. But the fact that I can put my vault here in a central location on one net for example, and I'll have a CPM in California, a CPM in Texas, a CPM in New York, a CPM in Florida, and actually be able to grow with my company and not necessarily have to continue to grow my vault until I get to a certain number accounts - yet I can still manage everything across the country, if not the world - I love that. I love the flexibility and the capability of being able to pull those components out.

Scalability is great. We have no problems. 

We have a very large, diverse, global environment, and we have not run into any scalability issues. 

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is highly scalable. When compared to other solutions it scales well.

I plan to use the solution more in the future.

It should be able to meet our needs going forward. I don't foresee us leveraging thousands more accounts than we already do. I think it will be fine.

The scalability is definitely very powerful. We did upgrade it, migrate it, a couple of times in the past. Previously I was involved in migrations and, of course, adding more resources, or more accounts - onboarding. It has been amazing.

So far, it has been fantastic. We are a very large organization. We have approximately 110,000 employees and almost 20,000 accounts vaulted, where there is a lot of room for us to continue to grow. Even at the scale that we are at now, it has never had any kind of issues. We have never had any issues with deploying additional things. We do have some room to grow in some of our components servers if we need those, but everything that we have stood up so far has been operating flawlessly. We have not had any issues with our scale. It has been great.

Scalability should not be an issue with us. Our implementation team sized it real well when we received it. We are a younger installation, so we have a long way to go. We have not seen the top end yet.

We have not gotten to scalability yet, because we are still working on integrating our systems. We have a very minute portion of it. 

So, scalability will come afterwards, once we have everything there and we understand how much capacity we have used. As of now, scalability has not been an issue.

The product should meet our needs in the future.

As I said above, you need to plan wisely before you implement it. You need to consider all prospects of this tool before implementation.

It is meeting our needs now, and will still meet our needs in the future.

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.

We have no issues with scalability. We are using it in a pretty wide environment. We also use it in our business continuity environment with no issues.

The scalability has been good, and will meet our needs in five year's time.

CyberArk is highly scalable. Depending on the companies infrastructure, the size of the CyberArk implementation can become quite large.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

The solution is scalable. We cater it to enterprise businesses.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is scalable on-premise but not on the cloud.

I rate the scalability of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager a seven out of ten.

Yes. The OU limitations, noted above.

It's a scalable solution but could be improved. On a scale of one to five, I would rate it a four.

We have been able to find a nice process for implementing CyberArk in terms of user adoption and onboarding. It's been pretty slick, and it works very well for us.

I would rate scalability at seven or eight out of 10. There is a need to improve the usage on for the consumer side. I hope in the upcoming product, the version may fulfill this.

I haven’t encountered any scalability issues. All the components are scalable.

This product scales amazingly well.

The scalability of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is good.

Most of our clients are enterprise-sized companies.

We have thousands of users using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager in my organization.

Scalability is very good.

It's pretty scalable. Like I said, we just doubled our servers. If there are more users logging in, we'll probably go for a greater number of servers again.

It is very scalable for an organization of our size, and I have talked with other CyberArk administrators running worldwide enterprises with CyberArk.

Scalability is rather good, we haven't reached any technical limitations yet.

I can foresee some issues if we suddenly have to put thousands of passwords into CyberArk Vault. I know they have the password upload utility, but it has its limitations.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. The product scales as the organisation grows.

The scalability is big. We are a large company, and there are only a few companies that can scale so well.

As far as I’m aware, we have not encountered any scalability issues. I have heard of some issues with the database of CyberArk when scaling to excessive amounts of entries, a long time ago. These issues have been fixed, as far as I know.

In addition, it is possible to have issues with the Central Policy Manager when you configure it wrong.

Never encountered any problems with scalability. The Vault, Central Policy Manager, Password Vault Web Access, Privileged Session Manager and Application Identity Management architecture are designed to support scalability.

For customer and service provides (like us ), PAM is a journey with continues improvement and hygiene practices to protect the critical system. CyberArk offers many solutions for endpoint privilege management, Domain Controller protection, DevOps security which helps in upselling and expanding the security measures. Also, the solution is capable of handling a distributed and heterogeneous environment 

The software is scalable enough, so if we want to add more domains, we can just go ahead and do it. I don't see a challenge with that. There are a couple of other parts of the solution that we are not rolling out, but we'll be doing that.

I have no scalability issues at the present time.

We haven't had issues with scalability.

As mentioned, one of the advantages of the CyberArk PAS suite is the modular build up; not only on covering the functional area, but also on size of your network/datacenter. If you, e.g., notice that the number of privileged accounts to manage increases, you can simply add an additional module/component that manages those passwords.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. The solution is fairly scalable. All presentation-level components are operable in highly available configurations.

This product is scales easily.

It seems to work well for any size of organization, or any size of deployment in my experience.  

We have not encountered any scalability issues. The solution was scaled right at the beginning of the project.

There are no issues with scalability. Our clients are very happy to use the product.

The scalability, sometimes, is lacking. It works really well for more static environments. I've been at places that had a really static environment and it works really well. You've got X number of CPMs and X number of PVWAs in your vault and everything gets up and going and it's smooth sailing. But for an environment where you're constantly spinning up new infrastructure or new endpoints, sometimes it has a hard time keeping up.

We have experienced some scalability issues, in terms of the performance.

I didn't have any issues with the stability. I usually recommend the client to increase the system requirements with 10%.

No issues.

There were no issues with scalability.

I did not have scalability issues.

It is scalable and scaling it is straightforward. It has been designed and planned well, making it easy to scale the environment.

I have found the solution to be scalable.

No.

The scalability of the solution is good. We expanded, and we found the biggest part was a bit unfomfortable in terms of product. They are designing, leveraging the features so greater different markets are joined. On the ground it was difficult initially.

CyberArk can be horizontally and vertically scaled, if it is well thought out during panning phase. As an example, if an organization feels that they may need high availability of Vault servers (CyberArk’s centralized storage for passwords and audit data) in the foreseeable future, they should consider installing CyberArk Vault in cluster mode instead of standalone mode. One can't use a standalone vault as a cluster vault or convert a standalone vault to a cluster vault, but in terms of increasing the number of passwords and session recording, underlying hardware can be scale to achieve desired size.

I have not encountered any scalability issues, technically speaking. Issues with the licenses can occur; the pricing model is not easy to understand.

We have no issues with scalability.

There have been no issues with scalability. You can easily manage more than 4000 accounts with one PSM.

It's a scalable solution. 

We have not encountered any scalability issues. It is very scalable with any requirements.

No issues encountered.

It is scalable. We have added new equipment, and this solution has been relevant. 

We do plan to continue to use the solution, however, it's unclear as to if we will scale it further.

Pretty scalable in the sense of PSM and storage.

No

There were no issues with scalability.