BeyondTrust Remote Support Reviews

The primary use case is for remote access, particularly for third-party access where direct access cannot be granted into the network. It addresses the need to provide vendors access without creating privileged IDs directly in the network.

The features are common among systems, including special management, password management, and credential management. A key advantage is over Password Safe, allowing third-party vendors access without directly onboarding them into the systems. With tools like PRA, access can be granted without creating IDs directly on AD, providing access to privileged or target systems very efficiently.

One potential improvement is in the support department. Customers based in India have to wait for support staff in the UK to start their shifts for assistance on non-urgent matters, even for severity one or two issues. Improved regional support timing would enhance the service.

I have been in this industry for 18 years.

Technologies and prominent tools are continuously evolving and are stable as they adapt to market changes.

Scalability depends on the size of the organization and the number of users, systems, and target servers. Exact scalability can vary based on these factors.

The customer service is excellent. They are responsive to severity issues immediately, however, coordination could improve regarding the time difference in various regions.

Positive

I have experience with various prominent tools like CyberArk and BeyondTrust.

Initial setup depends on several aligning factors within the organization and typically takes a couple of months to complete.

The pricing includes some variance in the cost of licensing, and the costs are integrated into the overall system pricing. Licensing across different tools does not show significant differences in costs.

The alternatives evaluated include CyberArk and BeyondTrust. The entry of Delinea, merging Centrify and Thycotic, has added more competition to the market which was previously dominated by the two aforementioned solutions.

I rate BeyondTrust Remote Support as eight out of ten. 

This solution is robust, and I recommend it for its efficient handling of remote access without needing to onboard users directly into systems. I give the overall solution a rating of eight out of ten.

Remote Support allows the help desk and IT administrative personnel to connect to users' computers as well as kiosks, conference room systems, etc. When I left the company, around 20 employees were using the tool.

The consulting firm I'm working with now focuses on the BeyondTrust privilege access management applications. Our company takes contracts to install BeyondTrust solutions like Password Safe and Remote Support for client companies.

The two environments where we have Remote Support implemented have satellite offices, so the whole company isn't in one physical location. Remote Support allowed us to centralize that help desk function in one place. We didn't need on-site staff to support the customers. 

It was also very helpful because COVID forced us to shift to work from home. Everybody was able to provide the same level of support from from home without any notice of any difference from the rest of the employees in the company.

I like Remote Support's ability to connect to a system without end-user interaction. A support engineer can log in to the system if a user is stuck and doesn't know where to go. This is helpful when conference room computers get locked down and the user can't access the guest OS.

The ability to connect mobile devices could be improved. Smartphones and tablets are becoming more prevalent throughout corporate environments. From time to time, we have problems connecting to those devices. 

You can't stage the application to connect without a user's input. You had to guide them through enabling permissions for the app. Then they need to enter the URL and session key. It would be great if they could streamline that process.

I've used Remote Support for about three years.

The stability of the cloud version was great. We never had any issues with it. We never had any downtime.

Yes, I think so because we started it with just the company that I installed it at was kind of a holding company, so to speak and we started with our central IT team and then started widening the scope, allowing the other unit companies, IT administrators, to be able to use it and deploy it as they needed. So I think it's definitely very scalable.

I would say five their support team has always been very helpful and timely.

I would say setting up the cloud version was fairly straightforward. BeyondTrust stood up the application and then handed it over just kind of blank, the company at the time did not want to pay the implementation cost. So integrated it with Azure for single sign on, set up the group policies, I would say it was pretty straightforward.

So it was kind of an ongoing. Once we got the initials set up and core administrators that would be using the tool set up with local accounts, it did become a more back burner task. I was able to work on it as I was had free time from other tasks. I would say really getting it to the basic usability point of being able to log in on the tool and to be able to connect and help somebody was within a couple hours and then developing the customizations, client deployment installations via group policy, transitioning from using local accounts to Azure AD accounts. If able to tackle in one sitting, probably would've been a few days, but since it was using more free time from other tasks, it was an ongoing process that took weeks and even into a couple of months to kind of get to a very nice deployment flow where everything was set up and easily usable and easy to onboard somebody else into the tool.

Just one person really. Just me.

I would say five. I mean, like I said, you're able to connect remotely. You're able to eliminate the costs of having employees either travel to other locations or station full-time employees there with the ability to deploy clients so that you can use to connect to different endpoints without requiring any user interaction. You're able to connect to those systems that may not be in use at the time, traditionally don't have physical access to the operating system, et cetera. So, definitely very, very good in return. And then once you build it out, the ease of onboarding new administrators into the tool.

I rate Remote Support eight out of 10 for affordability. It's definitely not the cheapest product, but you get a good return on your investment.

At the last company where I implemented Remote Support, we evaluated other solutions like TeamViewer and the built-in Windows assistance tool, but never functionally utilized them.

I believe they also had another tool before.  BeyondTrust Remote Support had the most functionality. The price point was a bit higher than others, but it fit the use case perfectly and had everything we were looking for.

I rate BeyondTrust Remote Support nine out of 10. It's definitely a useful tool. Out of all the products we tried, it had the most features and flexibility, so it's worth implementing.

We used it all the time in my previous organization. We don't use these tools here in my current organization. We don't yet have a need for them in this organization. It is a new and young company.

It is a great tool. It was very effective for what we needed it for. It enabled us to get in there very quickly and easily. It literally took only seconds. By getting in there and being able to fix and address whatever issue an end-user had, it served its purpose. 

It also allowed us to monitor what was going on, and we could go back and review later and see what that issue was for talking points for training and things of that nature.

It was invaluable because we were able to simply send a link out to whoever we needed to help within our organization. They'd click on the link, and they'd simply give us the permission that we needed to get in there. 

We could also monitor what our different support staff members were actively doing when they were trying to fix an issue or problem. It made it very quick and easy. It wasn't anything complicated. It was something that even the lowest-tech type of a person within our organization understood and didn't have a problem with.

It is effective. It is a good way of making sure that you're auditing what's going on. It also makes the end-user feel safe that you're not getting into things that you shouldn't be getting into because they're authorizing different areas for you to see. It is a pretty secure tool. It is important as far as security is concerned. It is very effective in terms of the support personnel being able to get the job done when they need to. It is easy for the end-user or the person we're helping out to understand how to allow somebody in to get the work done.

It is pricey. It would be nice if it weren't so expensive because then you could afford more licenses and have more people involved, but I get it. They do have something that's unique compared to some of their competitors out on the market. It is a very robust and safe tool. If the price could come down, that'd be great.

In terms of features, it is a great tool. I don't see any area for improvement. It pretty much provides all the features that you need. I can't think of anything additional. It has everything that you could possibly want.

I never had any issues. It was very solid.

There was no problem in scaling it. Originally, we only needed a few licenses. We had purchased 10 licenses, and it was easy to add additional licensing. It was easy to expand throughout our organization. We had different tech teams with different roles, and we were able to work that in pretty quickly. It wasn't a problem at all.

Its users were from the support team. They were responsible for helping out internal folks and external customers with their technical issues. We had several ITSM tools for support throughout North America, including BMC, Cherwell, and Avante products. We were able to use Bomgar to access our external customer's platforms to be able to get in there and see what's going on and fix things for them.

It was very straightforward. There is nothing complicated about it.

Its deployment was done in a day. It was so quick. It didn't take long at all.

It is pretty pricey. It is not cheap. The licensing structure is not cheap. The tool is not cheap, but in the long run, it is well worth it. It is probably one of the best on the market because it is just so easy to use and easy to deploy. It gave us the ability to see what everybody was doing. It held people accountable. It gave us the accountability that we needed.

I can't remember the latest price, but I know that when we originally started, it was about 20 grand or 25 grand. I can't remember what we ended up with at the end of the day, but it was pretty pricey.

My advice would be to just follow the simple directions that they give you and use it right away. You'll see the benefit right off the bat. There is nothing that anybody really needs to know about it other than that it is a great tool. There is no reason to look at any other tools because it comes with everything that you could possibly need and protects organizations from any breaches.

Originally, we started out because we were pretty impressed with the tool, and then we became a reseller for them. Initially, when they were really pushing it out there, we started reselling it for them because we really liked the product so much. We haven't been a reseller the whole time. We haven't been a reseller for years for a long time. 

I'd rate it a nine out of ten. The only reason why I am giving it a nine is because of the price. The price is just so high. The solution itself is a great solution. It's effective for support needs. Any organization that doesn't consider it and is trying to use other methods probably doesn't care too much about security. They are opening themselves up to breaches if they are not using something like the BeyondTrust tool. The BeyondTrust tool is a safe tool to eliminate any chance of a breach.

Our primary use cases are providing IT support to remote users who are coming through the network and managing the local password rotation for users. 

I have been working with BeyondTrust Remote Support for one year now.

The solution currently is not stable and we gave a road map of our expectations two or three days ago.

There was a scalability issue but that has now been solved. We are currently using it for twenty thousand users and we want to scale up to one hundred thousand users.

The support team who are interfacing with us, are excellent. They are on time for any response, but probably what I am guessing is that the backend team is not getting the same response on the development.

Positive

The initial setup was easy and deployment was not a problem.

The cost currently according to the client is a bit high for them.

I would rate BeyondTrust Remote Support an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to provide remote access control for our customers who onboard between 100 to 1,000 assets. 

Use cases can also include bridging active directories, servers, and databases.

Remote sessions are automatically recorded so there is a history of all coding and scripting. Notes and videos can be attached for both customers and service partners which is powerful.

Managing user accounts is easy. 

The solution should offer free training modules that focus on integrations for various servers, platforms, and devices. 

We sometimes have trouble accessing servers because of credentialing and multifactor authentication issues with PAM. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable with proper integration and I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution has rolled out a new environment with modified inner core that makes it very easy to scale and add assets or users. 

I rate scalability an eight out of ten. 

The setup can be simple or complex because it depends on the size of the customer's environment. Setup and deployment can take from two weeks to three months. 

Two engineers work on each project to onboard assets and set up users.

Our service partner implements the solution for customers. 

The solution is subscription-based and depends on the number of admin users. 

Previously, the solution's pricing was based on the number of assets. 

Pricing is comparable to One Identity but is too high. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We['ve been using the solution for remote support.

The regular use case is regular support for end-users, however, the other value of the platform is the fact that it gives very, very detailed insight capabilities and session recording capabilities. 

Another interesting use case is for inviting external support by our partners, locally. We are capable of inviting external support. 

The mobile support is rarely used, yet still in place.

The solution does offer mobile support.

Setting up the cloud deployment is very simple. 

The solution is stable.

We've found the technical support to be quite helpful and very valuable to have.

There is a gap in the iOS remote support. I know that it's somehow restricted by the architecture of the platform. It might be good to get some more insights on it. There could be some insights into reporting, including better reporting capabilities. That would be helpful as well.

iOS interactive support would be a cool addition. Right now it's a non-interactive view.

The licensing is very expensive. 

We've been using the solution for five years.

The product is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We find that there is potential for scaling. The scalability requires some effort, however, especially within the on-premise environment.

In terms of usage, we've got around 50,000 users who get supported by it and the actual operators of the product are around 2,000 people.

We do not plan to increase usage. It will be hard to extend its use from the current levels.

Technical support has been very valuable. We are happy with the level of support.

Previously, we tried LogMeIn and we tried TeamViewer as well.

BeyondTrust had much better auditing capabilities and was putting a lot of effort into ensuring that the solution is secure enough. We chose it mainly due to the capabilities that BeyondTrust provides, within the area of auditing, session control, and session insights.

For the on-premise environments, the initial setup was quite complex. That was not due to the solution, however. Rather, it was the complexity of the local environment. 

The cloud setup was quite simple. The only challenge is the life cycle of those remote agents.

We do not need a large team to handle maintenance. There are two people globally maintaining it.

The solution is very expensive.

We are billed yearly.

We are using the latest version of the solution.

We have two environments. One is on cloud and one is on-premises.

I would advise potential users that if they need best-in-class, then definitely they should look at BeyondTrust. That said, you have to keep in mind the cost of it.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The primary use case of this product is for remote support. Customers will call in with an issue and we connect them with an engineer. Some of our engineers also work remotely.  I'm the director in the CTO office and we are customers of BeyondTrust. 

Allows seamless access to client environments without installing agents everywhere.

Having a secure method of access without having to install agents everywhere is a good feature. It also offers the flexibility to support many customers with few licenses.

I'd like to see remote support and privileged remote access built into the same product. That's lacking in the solution and means that we need to buy two completely different tools that are 90% similar? The PRA and the remote support are the same product. For some reason they sell them separately and we need both. I don't want to buy two different products.

The company has been using this solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable although there's a cost involved. We have both manager services and professional services people using it. Our IT manager is the person who deals with upgrades. 

I don't deal with technical support but I haven't heard any complaints. I think they're okay. 

The company previously used a different solution and I think the reason they switched was that with BeyondTrust you didn't need to install agents while the previous solution was agent based. Other than that, I don't think there was much between them. 

I don't know what licensing costs are but I believe it's on par with other solutions when we did compare that. It may be a little more if you have many concurrent sessions needed. 

It's important to understand the purpose of the solution. Professional services is one thing, manager services is another. It's about PRA and remote support, they do two different things which is why I'd like to see them combined because we usually need both pieces of functionality. You need to understand your use case before you engage with any company that you're trying to get a solution for.

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

It is used for remote support for the service desk. We primarily use it for troubleshooting activities. When users have an issue, they call up the service desk or send an email. One of the technicians uses this solution to remotely access their computer. The technicians can see the screens, take control, do some troubleshooting, share files, and implement fixes.

Screen sharing, in general, is pretty important for a service desk. Another thing that I have found to be very helpful is that you can also do screen sharing on a cell phone. When people have an issue with their cell phone, it is ordinarily very difficult to troubleshoot the issue. With BeyondTrust Remote Support, you can share the cell phone screen, and somebody can take a look at it remotely. I am not sure if other competing solutions offer this feature.

It is pretty user-friendly. It is also good performance-wise.

It is expensive. Its initial setup was also a little bit involved, but it was nothing that we couldn't eventually handle.

Currently, it has the ability to share screens. Somebody having an issue with their phone can share their screen with a technician sitting at a computer. It would be nice to also be able to control phones remotely, but this could be a limitation of a phone's operating system. In Apple's case, we're going to have Apple that's restricting that, but it would be nice to be able to remotely control someone's phone so that we could provide greater assistance in troubleshooting.

We haven't had any issues related to it crashing.

It works well for us now. It is used within the service desk department, and there are only a certain number of people who log in and access remote computers. We have 20 to 30 technicians who are using this solution.

We won't be opening it up to a lot of people or the entire IT department because that would be expensive. Its licensing is on a per technician basis. We would have to buy more licenses if we have more users. This is something that needs to be considered for a large-scale rollout.

If we were to expand its use within our organization, that should be easily doable.  BeyondTrust allows for multiple servers with redundancy and failover, so we could add additional servers where we have the most users in order to handle increased load.

The only time we had to work with them was for the initial setup. Their professional support helped us out with that. It worked well because we did get it set up. We didn't really have any complaints.

Its initial setup was a little bit involved, but it was nothing that we couldn't eventually handle. We have a tool with a button that deploys endpoints. Users can just click on that button, and it'll get them into a queue.

It is expensive. Performance-wise, it is pretty good, but we're less happy with the cost.

Its licensing is on a yearly basis. It is also on a per-technician basis. A certain number of concurrent technicians can log in and access all the features. 

We were limited on time, so we did a little bit of evaluation. Later this year, we may evaluate again.

It has worked pretty well for us, but it is probably better suited for larger organizations because of the cost. If you've got a small organization and you need to do a small amount of remote support, a less expensive option would be more suitable.

I would rate BeyondTrust Remote Support a nine out of ten.