We performed a comparison between Azure Active Directory and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Azure Active Directory is the more popular solution because its deployment is easier and it has a free version.
"Performance-wise, it is excellent."
"The implementation of the PSM proxy has reduced the specific risk of "insider attacks" on our domain controllers and SLDAP servers by eliminating direct user login by an open secure connection on the user's behalf without ever revealing the privileged credentials."
"It is a scalable product."
"The product has allowed us to improve both the management and access to privileged credentials, while also creating a full audit trail of all activities happening within isolated sessions of all tasks and activities taking place within the solution."
"It is one of the best solutions in the market. Ever since I started using this solution, there has not been any compromise when it comes to our lab."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution include password management and Rest API retrieval of vaulted credentials."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the vault. I am satisfied with the interface and the documentation."
"It enhances security, especially for unregistered devices. It 1000% has security features that help to improve our security posture. It could be irritating at times, but improving the security posture is exactly what the Authenticator app does."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use."
"It's a very intuitive platform. It's easy to create groups and add people."
"I like Intune's MDM and MI."
"It's a very scalable solution."
"We have a history of all our authentications and excellent integration with the Microsoft solutions we use at our company. It runs smoothly in Windows and macOS."
"What I like is that I can go anywhere, at any time, and to any client premise, and I can simply log in to the admin panel and can serve any of my clients."
"It's an easy product to maintain."
"PAM could be more user-friendly and CyberArk could update the documentation to include more real-world examples. You have to learn it yourself through trial and error. In particular, the online documentation should have more information about troubleshooting."
"CyberArk PAM is a very broad product as everyone's requirements for implementation are different. In our particular case, the initial implementation was planned and developed by people who didn't know our specific network requirements, so the initial implementation needed to be tweaked over time. While this is normal, at the time all these "major" changes required CyberArk professional services to come in-plant and "assist" with the changes."
"Currently, in Secure Connect, an end user is required to enter account information manually, and cannot save any of this information for future use."
"The initial setup was a bit complex."
"The greatest area of improvement is with the user interface of the Password Vault Web Access component."
"In the beginning, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager didn't have a multifactor authentication feature, so that was an area for improvement, but now it's part of the solution. Having just one console for two CyberArk products would be good, particularly for the CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and the CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, with the latter being a product for endpoint management that supports the workstations and allows you to manage workstations. In the next update of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, it would be good to have a local agent where you can manage all users and processes, and have an agent on the servers such as Linux and Windows."
"The initial setup has room for improvement to be more straightforward."
"They are sometimes not flexible with things. For instance, from one day to another, there might be something that had been done years ago by CyberArk, then they say, "We do not support that." You then have to initiate a complaint and start working with them. Things might become complicated and months pass while you are working with them. Usually, they are good and fast, but sometimes they seem to be blocked with problems, e.g., you will suddenly be working with another team instead of the team that you were working with the day before."
"You can manage the users from the Office 365 administration center, and you can manage them from Azure Active Directory. Those are two different environments, but they do the same things. They can gather the features in one place, and it might be better if that place were Azure."
"The only improvement would be for everything to be instant in terms of applying changes and propagating them to systems."
"The pricing is okay, however, it could always be better in the future."
"The technical support can be confusing - if you're looking for something very specific, it can be hard to get the right answer or a solution."
"Maybe there could be a dashboard view for Active Directory with some pie or bar charts on who is logged in, who is not logged in, and on the activity of each user for the past few days: whether they're active or not active."
"There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of its integration with the local Active Directory. There are some gaps in terms of the local Active Directory through which Microsoft is syncing our environment from our data center. There should be the availability of custom attributes on Azure Active Directory. In addition, there should be the availability of security groups and distribution groups that are residing on the local Active Directory. Currently, they are not replicated on Azure Active Directory by default."
"I think the solution can improve by making the consumption of that data easier for our customers."
"The downside of using a single password to access the entire system is that if those credentials are compromised, the hacker will have full access."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 49 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Access Management with 96 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.8. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Saves time, creates a single pane of glass, and offers good conditional access features". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion, Zscaler Internet Access and SailPoint IdentityIQ, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Google Cloud Identity, Yubico YubiKey, Auth0, Microsoft Intune and Fortinet FortiToken. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Access Management 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.
