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

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs Microsoft Defender for IoT 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 Privileged Access ...
Ranking in Operational Technology (OT) Security
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
223
Ranking in other categories
User Activity Monitoring (1st), Enterprise Password Managers (2nd), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (1st), Mainframe Security (2nd)
Microsoft Defender for IoT
Ranking in Operational Technology (OT) Security
6th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
IoT Security (5th), Microsoft Security Suite (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Operational Technology (OT) Security category, the mindshare of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is 0.2%. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for IoT is 5.6%, up from 3.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Operational Technology (OT) Security
 

Featured Reviews

Abdul Durrani - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables granular and secure access with just-in-time access and Zero Trust model
CyberArk provides a good amount of control over access types. However, as a future enhancement, having additional features for cross-platform integration would be beneficial. It would be good to have integrations with other tools and firewalls, such as Zscaler and CrowdStrike. Although I am not fully aware of recent updates, more cross-platform integration would be valuable. A SOC analyst would like to have centralized access in terms of information flowing in even for privileged access management. They would like to have control over everything instead of opening four to five tabs for different sorts of information. Cross-platform integration would help with that. Customers also want CyberArk's pricing to be better so that they can implement it further and have more licenses. Implementing a privileged access management solution can be challenging. It would be great if CyberArk could provide recommendations based on the compliance standards of an organization. It would help system admins ensure that all the required ports are closed and the systems are being managed properly. If any system is not being used anymore, any ports opened for that system need to be closed. Having such recommendations would be helpful.
William Tuleja - PeerSpot reviewer
Integration with existing tools boosts management efficiency
The only improvement I see is that some detection explanations are vaguely provided by Microsoft, resulting in generic IoT detections that alert me to an issue yet don't specify what's wrong. Often, it just links back to a generic KB article without additional information. When it happens, it requires extra detective work. This issue doesn't occur often but can be annoying.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Thus far I can say technical support is excellent. We haven't had any issues or difficulties."
"The privileged support manager is the most valuable feature of CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault."
"I would recommend CyberArk Privileged Access Manager."
"Provides improved security around having your credentials locked down and rotated regularly."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager makes it easy for users to retrieve and manage their passwords."
"Performance-wise, it is excellent."
"The automatic change of the password and Privileged Session Manager (PSM) are the most valuable features. With Privileged Session Manager, you can control the password management in a centralized way. You can activate these features in a session; the session isolation and recording. You apply the full intermediation principle. So, you must pass through CyberArk PAM to get access to the target system. You don't need to know the password, and everything that you do is registered and auditable. In this case, no one gets to touch the password directly. Also, you can implement detection and response behavior in case of a breach."
"The password rotation and cyber gateway have been quite useful."
"I believe it is best suited for cloud services and is unmatched by other cloud security solutions."
"The graphics and analysis in Microsoft Defender for IoT are very representative."
"Some advantages of Microsoft Defender for IoT are that it's easy to install on any OS, and you can create any custom use cases easily."
"Mainly, it is manageable and integrates with other Microsoft products, which is crucial for me."
"I find Microsoft Defender very effective in vulnerability management and it provides good attack reduction, making it a next-generation protection solution."
"As a cybersecurity consultant, the best part of Microsoft Defender for IoT is the capability to integrate with other tools such as Microsoft Sentinel and receive real-time alerts from the product."
"It is manageable and integrates with other Microsoft products, which is crucial for me."
 

Cons

"My concern and area for improvement revolves around reporting."
"CyberArk could enhance its usability by simplifying its architecture and design."
"It can be integrated with other systems, but it is not easy to integrate. It takes too long to integrate it. Its integration should be easier and simpler."
"The solution needs better features for end users to manage their own whitelisting for API retrieval."
"If CyberArk wants people to pay for cloud services, they need to make the cloud services much more real-time."
"There was a situation when one of our presidents had an issue, but I can't recall the specifics."
"As of now, it does not manage all of the IDM practices. It is only good as a PAM solution."
"For users to access a system via CyberArk Privileged Session Manager, a universal connector needs to be coded in a language called AutoIT and its support for web browsers is so-so. Other products like Centrify have browser plugins that can help automate the process when using their products."
"The documentation for Microsoft Defender for IoT is lacking. There are no clear steps or guidance, and updates are frequent, which adds to the confusion."
"Microsoft Defender for IoT is not scalable. If you want to monitor another industrial network, you need an additional server, making it less scalable."
"The only improvement I see is that some detection explanations are vaguely provided by Microsoft, resulting in generic IoT detections that alert me to an issue yet don't specify what's wrong."
"The primary area that needs improvement is compatibility with the latest IoT technologies."
"The only improvement I see is that some detection explanations are vaguely provided by Microsoft, resulting in generic IoT detections that alert me to an issue yet don't specify what's wrong."
"There are a few limitations with Microsoft Defender for IoT. We raised concerns with the product team because they don't capture all the information regarding command execution or processes executed on certain endpoints."
"Customer service and support from Microsoft are costly. The execution by engineers is expensive, and the service is neither free nor toll-free, making it less accessible for customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"In comparison to other products on the market, CyberArk is a more costly product."
"I have heard from my leaders that CyberArk is costlier in terms of licensing. The support and maintenance are also costly. We use their premium support, but for the price we pay, we do not get the value."
"The price of this solution is quite reasonable."
"It's expensive, certainly. But CyberArk is the leader in the market with regards to privileged access management. You pay a lot, but you are paying for the value that is being delivered."
"CyberArk is one of the best PAM solutions and one of the most expensive, but it works better than the others, so the pricing is fair."
"The cost is high compared to other products."
"Pricing and licensing depend on the environment."
"Compared to other solutions, it is costly."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Operational Technology (OT) Security solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
23%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Energy/Utilities Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Sailpoint IdentityIQ compare with CyberArk PAM?
We evaluated Sailpoint IdentityIQ before ultimately choosing CyberArk. Sailpoint Identity Platform is a solution to manage risks in cloud enterprise environments. It automates and streamlines the m...
What do you like most about CyberArk Privileged Access Manager?
The most valuable features of the solution are control and analytics.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender for IoT?
I don't think I have any recommendation on improvements for Microsoft Defender for IoT because we don't use it too extensively. There are a few limitations with Microsoft Defender for IoT. We raise...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender for IoT?
Clients mainly use Microsoft Defender for IoT for unfamiliar sign-in attempts and Microsoft Defender EDRs. We are using use cases for unfamiliar sign-in and malicious activity, such as user sign-in...
 

Also Known As

CyberArk Privileged Access Security, CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault
Azure Defender for IoT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rockwell Automation
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Microsoft Defender for IoT and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.