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

CyberArk Identity vs Fischer Identity Access Management 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

CyberArk Identity
Ranking in Access Management
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (10th), Identity Management (IM) (9th), Authorization Software (3rd), Enterprise Password Managers (8th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (9th), Active Directory Management (6th), Cloud Resource Access Management (3rd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (6th)
Fischer Identity Access Man...
Ranking in Access Management
38th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of CyberArk Identity is 3.6%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fischer Identity Access Management is 0.2%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
CyberArk Identity3.6%
Fischer Identity Access Management0.2%
Other96.2%
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

Jai Anand - PeerSpot reviewer
Has strengthened identity controls and improved regulatory compliance across global operations
The initial deployment is complex and requires many users, making it more suitable for larger enterprises. It requires a number of users to get it deployed, particularly for on-premises deployments. This typically involves a lot of initial planning, setup, and configuration. Another important consideration is the cost. It can be quite expensive, making it more suitable for larger enterprises rather than small businesses or startups. The learning curve is also significant due to the numerous features and configurations available. Some features necessitate a detailed analysis and understanding to effectively work with this solution. Additionally, the user interface needs some improvements. It appears outdated compared to the technology we are using in 2025. The UI seems like it's from the early 2000s, making it look considerably behind the times, about 20 to 25 years old.
Use Fischer Identity Access Management?
Share your opinion
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
868,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CyberArk Identity?
The integration capabilities, ability to integrate CyberArk into the overall IBB strategy of our current clients.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Identity?
I am not certain about CyberArk Identity's exact pricing model. For comparison, Okta was around five dollars per user. CyberArk Identity offers good discounts to some clients, which influences thei...
What needs improvement with CyberArk Identity?
The reporting functionality is somewhat complicated. While I would rate CyberArk Identity and Okta on the same level, Okta's reporting is crisper and clearer. For CyberArk Identity, you need knowle...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Idaptive
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MLB, Citi, Pfizer, SulAmerica, GE Capital, Shiseido
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Okta, Ping Identity and others in Access Management. Updated: September 2025.
868,654 professionals have used our research since 2012.