We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Okta Workforce Identity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Access Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."If any intruder gets inside, they would not be able to move around nor do lateral movements. It minimize any attack problems within our network."
"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."
"The solution helps our developers access internal systems. It also helps us in Privilege Access Management."
"Central Password Manager is useful for agentless automated password management through AD integration as well as endpoints for different devices."
"The key aspects of privileged access management are being able rotate passwords, make sure someone is accountable, and tie it back to a user (when the system is being used)."
"Creating policies and the password rotation feature have been valuable. We don't have to memorize our password for the ADM account."
"CyberArk is a very stable product and it's a stable product because it has a simple design and a simple architecture that allows you to leverage the economies of scale across the base of your infrastructure that you already have implemented. It doesn't really introduce any new complex pieces of infrastructure that would make it that much more difficult to scale."
"It is a robust product."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The feature that is most valuable to me is the automated user provisioning that we set up using Okta as a major part of that process."
"The most valuable features of Okta Workforce Identity are SSO, MFA, and beneficial feature sets."
"The product’s most valuable feature is multifactor authentication."
"It offers very helpful support. The technical team is very helpful."
"The most valuable features depend on a customer's needs. Our customers generally find multi-factor authentication very useful."
"We can automate the process of adding users to Okta if they are activated in Active Directory, or if they are added to the database of applications or Active Directory in the last couple of days."
"One of the most beneficial features of the solution is the user provisioning and the de-provisioning feature."
"The current interface is not very intuitive."
"What could be improved in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the licensing model. It should be more flexible in terms of the users. Currently, it's based on the number of users, but many users only log in once in four months or once in five months. It would be great if the licensing model could be modified based on user needs. We even have users who have not logged in even once."
"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."
"We need a bit more education for our user community because they are not using it to its capabilities."
"It's hard to find competent resellers/support."
"The product could be easier to use. More work needs to be done on this aspect; it is not good enough yet. It also takes up a lot of server space. Sometimes we need to use up to seven servers."
"More additional features as far as the REST is concerned, because we have something which was the predecessor to REST. A lot of the features which were in the predecessor have not necessarily been ported over to REST yet."
"They can do a better job in the PSM space."
"I would appreciate it if Okta Workforce Identity becomes more user-friendly. Its API technology is complicated. Certain applications may pose challenges in terms of integration, especially when they require IDP technologies that aren't easily codable. While I can't provide specific examples, some applications may not integrate with Okta Workforce Identity."
"The solution is very expensive."
"There are some issues with the interface that can be improved."
"This user integration with the Okta integration network could be simplified."
"Okta Workforce Identity could improve provisioning it can be made simpler."
"Support could be a bit faster."
"It is challenging to obtain a comprehensive backup."
"There should be automated aggregation and complete classification processes included in it."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 142 reviews while Okta Workforce Identity is ranked 3rd in Access Management with 56 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Okta Workforce Identity is rated 8.6. 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 Okta Workforce Identity writes "Extremely easy to work with, simple to set up, and reasonably priced ". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion and One Identity Safeguard, whereas Okta Workforce Identity is most compared with Google Cloud Identity, Microsoft Entra ID, SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt and Google Cloud Platform Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Okta Workforce Identity 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.