We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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."The automatic rotation of credentials is probably the most useful feature."
"CyberArk has helped us to identify, store, protect, and monitor the usage of privileged accounts."
"Allows secure, logged access to highly sensitive servers and services."
"The password management feature is valuable."
"You can easily manage more than 4000 accounts with one PSM."
"We know when passwords will be expiring so we can force users to change their passwords, as well as requiring specific password requirements for length, complexity, etc."
"The integrations are the most valuable aspect of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. The software offers pre-built integrations, and our team can also create custom connectors. This flexibility allows us to integrate with systems that we previously didn't consider integrating with, making it a significant advantage for us."
"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)."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"The cloud-based services are a nice feature."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"The backup is the best feature."
"For example, if a security Intel threat talks about an IOC. We can then go to our MSP and say, "Is there a signature for this particular type of malware that just came out?" And if they'll say yes, then we'll say, "Okay. Does it apply to these firewalls? And have we seen any hits on it?" There's absolutely value in it."
"The initial setup was somewhat complex."
"The support services could act faster when people reach out to resolve issues."
"There was a functionality of the solution that was missing. I had noticed it in Beyond Trust, but not in this solution. But, recently they have incorporated something similar."
"Many of the infrastructure folks who use the product dislike it because it complicates their workflow. They get a little less control, and they have to go through a specific solution. It proactively logs in for them, which obfuscates some of the issues that they may be troubleshooting."
"Sometimes the infrastructure team is hesitant to provide more resources."
"One of the main things that could be improved would be filtering accounts on the main page and increasing the functionality of the filters. There are some filters on the side which are very specific, but I feel there could be more."
"The solution needs better features for end users to manage their own whitelisting for API retrieval."
"Some of the additional features that we are looking at are in the Conjur product. I am specifically discussing key management, API Keys, and things for connecting applications in the CI/CD pipelines."
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power."
"Palo Alto Networks WildFire should be more real-time in nature. The signature updates should happen in a minute or less than a minute to be a very good feature for the customer."
"Our main concern is that everything has to be synced with the WildFire Cloud and has to be checked through the subscription."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
"The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive."
"Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features."
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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection and Juniper SRX Series Firewall. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire report.
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.