Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apono Platform vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Apono Platform
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
53rd
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
AI Security (137th)
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege...
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Compliance (4th), Anti-Malware Tools (5th), Application Control (3rd), Ransomware Protection (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of Apono Platform is 0.5%. The mindshare of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is 2.6%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Privileged Access Management (PAM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager2.6%
Apono Platform0.5%
Other96.9%
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
 

Featured Reviews

Use Apono Platform?
Leave a review
Sumit Chavan - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Consultant at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Helps secure the infrastructure and control users with admin rights
There are many features that are currently missing. A customization option is required for certain policies. For instance, if we need to stop PowerShell scripting, we have to create a different policy for that. Being able to create a sub-level policy within a top-level policy would be good. Currently, no user-based policy option is available inside the EPM console. We can only create computer-based policies. The database is available, but there is a drawback in not being able to create local groups on the EPM console. We only have to depend on Active Directory. This limits infrastructure security as we depend on the Active Directory team to manage user groups. If they remove any users, we lose control. If we could create groups locally and block them or set specific policies, we would have more control. Local endpoint management is missing from the EPM site. Moreover, there is an issue with policies not running as expected when we make enhancements. We have to find multiple ways to whitelist applications or enhance policies.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
879,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise18
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Looking for recommendations and a pros/cons template for software to detect insider threats
This is an inside-out --- outside-in --- inside-in question, as an insider can be an outsider as well. There is no short answer other than a blend of a PAM tool with Behavioral Analytics and Endpo...
What do you like most about CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?
The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?
I believe it's quite a reasonably priced solution. It's not very common to use CyberArk because it's a niche solution, but customers who are willing to control administrative accounts are willing t...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Viewfinity
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, One Identity, Delinea and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM). Updated: December 2025.
879,768 professionals have used our research since 2012.