We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and CyberArk Privileged Access 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."CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is very easy to manage, which I like. The solution also has a dashboard where you can see which software is suspicious, which I find valuable."
"I have always found that CyberArk is a very tight, foolproof product compared to most other products available."
"The product is stable."
"We were able to reduce the number of privileged accounts by 50%, which helped to simplify our privileged access management environment."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The solution allows me to give access and privileges to each user individually"
"We can do both server and endpoint protection."
"The most valuable feature is that their database is completely encrypted and protected with multiple layers."
"CyberArk has allowed us to get the credentials and passwords out of hard-coded property files."
"It is a central repository. Therefore, if someone needs to access a server, then they go through CyberArk PAM. It provides a secure way to do this and CyberArk PAM records everything. For example, if you are connecting to a Linux server, then once you get into the Linux server and if it is integrated with CyberArk, it will automatically start recording everything that is being done. In most banks, seeing the recordings is very useful. If there are any gaps or something has happened which shouldn't have happened, then we can check the logs and videos. So, it gives security, in a robust manner, to the organization."
"On the EBB user side, we were able to secure all the server root passwords and admin for Windows. This was a big win for us."
"The combination of CPM and PSM resolves a lot of use cases."
"AIM has been a great help in automating password retrieval which removes the need for hard-coded credentials."
"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."
"We have demoted a lot of domain admins and taken a lot of that away from people, giving it a shared account structure."
"I like the integrations for external applications."
"It is hard to deal with technical support if you are not certified."
"Can be improved by allowing computers to be excluded from policies."
"Technical support is slow to respond when we run into issues."
"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."
"We have had some major issues with the tool, but we have worked with the R&D teams and we have worked with support. There is room for improvement, especially on response times. But they're working on it and they're doing the best they can."
"It's an old product and has many areas that can be improved."
"CyberArk has some performance issues. For example, servers could not handle the solution when we first took CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager."
"The price of the solution should improve."
"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."
"They can do a better job in the PSM space."
"New functionalities and discovered bugs take longer to patch. We would greatly appreciate quicker development of security patches and bug corrections."
"The web access piece needs improvement. We have version 9.5 or 9.9.5, and now we have to upgrade to version 10."
"One of our current issues is a publishing issue. If we whitelist Google Chrome, all the events of Google Chrome should be gone. It is not happening."
"They need to provide better training for the System Integrator."
"It can be made user-friendly, in the sense of the console is pretty outdated."
"It needs better documentation with more examples for the configuration files and API/REST integration"
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 26 reviews while CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 142 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.0, while CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager writes "Lets you ensure relevant, compliant access in good time and with an audit trail, yet lacks clarity on MITRE ATT&CK". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon, Tanium and SentinelOne Singularity Complete, whereas CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion and F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM). See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. CyberArk Privileged Access 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.