We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Sectona Privileged Access Management 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."It has drastically reduced the attack surface for local administrative rights and the chance of escalation of privilege. We've removed, at this point, close to 98 percent of the local administrative accounts on workstations. If there were an incident, it would stop at that point and we'd be able to know."
"We can do both server and endpoint protection."
"The password rotation and the session recording are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance."
"The most valuable feature is that their database is completely encrypted and protected with multiple layers."
"I am impressed with the product's seamless integration. The PAM wallet and enterprise password wallet are good also good."
"What sets CyberArk apart is its continuous innovation, staying ahead of the competition."
"The department management aspect of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"The most valuable feature is the risk management. When a Privileged user performs a certain command, such as running a script, the system highlights it in the risk management section as high, critical, or medium risk."
"The most valuable features of Sectona Privileged Access Management include robust session monitoring for privileged users."
"The most valuable feature of Sectona Privileged Access Management for protecting Privileged accounts is its built-in launcher. Additionally, the single sign-on capability is good. Sectona's session recording feature is particularly noteworthy because it utilizes minimal storage. Instead of recording entire sessions, it captures activity only when necessary, optimizing storage space."
"A key factor for my company is support, and Sectona Privileged Access Management has good support. Another valuable feature of Sectona Privileged Access Management is that it's easy to onboard."
"CyberArk has some performance issues. For example, servers could not handle the solution when we first took CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"The installation process is pretty difficult."
"Performance could be better. We have a couple of problems with CyberArk right now. One of the problems is performance in our environment. Support also takes a long time to respond. If the user already has local admin rights, then I can't collect any events in the console from this device. There are also some options in CyberArk that are not working properly, and are not helpful in this case. I can't collect any information to create a proper policy for the device. I have to investigate everything manually, or even disable the local admin from the device. I can collect the events only after this, and it's very time consuming. In my case, it's a waste of resources."
"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."
"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."
"The tool should be more user-friendly."
"Technical support is slow to respond when we run into issues."
"As I don't have at least one to two years of experience with Sectona Privileged Access Management, I cannot share areas for improvement in the solution. To me, Sectona Privileged Access Management has reasonable pricing, but it could still be improved. I'm also unsure if Sectona Privileged Access Management could cover the requirements of large-sized companies, but for small-sized to medium-sized companies, I'd recommend the solution."
"I would like to see future updates include robust support for cloud environments as organizations increasingly move towards cloud-based solutions."
"Sectona needs to think about SaaS solutions and cloud use cases. For example, we need to be able to integrate Sectona PAM with next-generation applications such as Docker and Lambda, as well as ITD pipelines that use privileged user data."
"Sectona Privileged Access Management needs to improve its stability. It needs to enhance the product's stability because of frequent updates. This is crucial for a solution like Privileged Access Management, as organizations rely on stability. When it becomes unstable, it causes panic."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Sectona Privileged Access Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 28 reviews while Sectona Privileged Access Management is ranked 17th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 4 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.2, while Sectona Privileged Access Management is rated 7.8. 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 Sectona Privileged Access Management writes "Effective risk management, feature of recording all privileged user activities in a compressed format but limited SaaS capability". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Tanium, whereas Sectona Privileged Access Management is most compared with ARCON Privileged Access Management and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Sectona Privileged Access Management 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.
