We performed a comparison between ARCON Privileged Access Management and CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager 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."The most valuable feature of ARCON Privileged Access Management is the recording of sessions. It has all the basic features we need to fulfill our use case."
"The initial setup was very simple. There was only one server we had to setup. We needed to store all the passwords, and a secure database is used."
"It is recording video records for Windows and command-line reports for others, Linux and AIX, of whatever activities being carries by that particular administrator."
"One standout feature of ARCON is its ability to resolve lagging issues, especially noticeable in Linux environments."
"After storing the administrator password in this password vault of the solution, the solution can automatically go and change the password based on the defined frequency with the defined complexity."
"Session recording is the most valuable feature, as it covers compliance and it also covers our in-house applications."
"They don't just stick to a base version; instead, they actively enhance and improve it based on client feedback and industry trends."
"The best part of this product is the administrator convenience. The portal is very user-friendly. An administrator can use it very easily."
"What sets CyberArk apart is its continuous innovation, staying ahead of the competition."
"The solution allows me to give access and privileges to each user individually"
"I have always found that CyberArk is a very tight, foolproof product compared to most other products available."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager (EPM) 's most valuable feature is its ability to manage user application privileges and protect against ransomware attacks by controlling access to specific files and applications."
"We were able to reduce the number of privileged accounts by 50%, which helped to simplify our privileged access management environment."
"We can do both server and endpoint protection."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The solution is scalable."
"This product is lacking in terms of dashboarding analytics and should have user behavior analytics. It should also have better dashboarding for executive management and security managers, which this product is missing."
"One common problem I faced with ARCON PAM was compatibility issues with certain software versions."
"The solution needs more work on the password management side of things. Password management is a big challenge for us, and I would like to improve this aspect. We're finding that BeyondTrust is better in this regard, which is why we're probably going to migrate over. It will offer better security I think."
"Managing users is difficult, so that is something that can be improved."
"We expect improvement in the dashboards to provide visibility of password compliance status, whenever a password is opened from the vault. Also, flexibility to customize the live dashboard."
"I would like for it to be dependent on Windows as opposed to Linux."
"One thing which needs improvement is where it is keeping video logs of Windows Servers, whatever activities are being carried out by the administrator. Because Windows logs are a video, they are unsearchable, so if you need to search for a specific administrator and what he has done on a server, right now you need to go through different video logs of that particular timeframe. I think they are coming up with an additional feature where in it can be indexed and can be searchable."
"The deployment process is a bit complex because no document is available."
"The solution is very expensive."
"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."
"CyberArk has some performance issues. For example, servers could not handle the solution when we first took CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"It's an old product and has many areas that can be improved."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is a perfect solution, but CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager for Linux has many issues. Another area for improvement in CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, specifically for Windows, is that there's no way for you to check credential theft from a text file, such as a notepad file."
"Can be improved by allowing computers to be excluded from policies."
More ARCON Privileged Access Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
ARCON Privileged Access Management is ranked 8th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 32 reviews while CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 26 reviews. ARCON Privileged Access Management is rated 7.8, while CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ARCON Privileged Access Management writes "Offers good session monitoring and recording features". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". ARCON Privileged Access Management is most compared with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, ManageEngine PAM360 and Delinea Secret Server, whereas CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Tanium. See our ARCON Privileged Access Management vs. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager report.
See our list of best Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors.
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.
