We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and WALLIX Bastion 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.
"It improves security in our company. We have more than 10,000 accounts that we manage in CyberArk. We use these accounts for SQLs, Windows Server, and Unix. Therefore, keeping these passwords up-to-date in another solution or software would be impossible. Now, we have some sort of a platform to manage passwords, distribute the inflow, and manage IT teams as well as making regular changes to it according to the internal security policies in our bank."
"It is a scalable product."
"The automatic password management is the most important feature. The second most important feature is the ability to enforce dual control on the release of those passwords. The combination of these two features is the most important thing for us because we can show that we're in control of who uses any non-personal account, and when they do so."
"The automatic rotation of credentials is probably the most useful feature."
"The most valuable feature is Special Monitoring."
"It is a central repository. Therefore, if someone needs to access a server, then they go through CyberArk PAM. It provides a secure way to do this and CyberArk PAM records everything. For example, if you are connecting to a Linux server, then once you get into the Linux server and if it is integrated with CyberArk, it will automatically start recording everything that is being done. In most banks, seeing the recordings is very useful. If there are any gaps or something has happened which shouldn't have happened, then we can check the logs and videos. So, it gives security, in a robust manner, to the organization."
"All of the features of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager are valuable."
"The password vault and session monitoring are useful."
"WALLIX Bastion's most valuable feature is the Access Manager because you can use it and access the data center without any client VPN."
"Its video recording capabilities have definitely been key for us."
"I like that it's Linux-based, and you don't need to have separate implementations, extra database licenses, or enterprise licenses. I think because it's Linux-based, it's more seamless than Windows. I also like the access manager, which I think is a super tool. Everything is browser-based, and you don't need a VPN. So, that's a great thing."
"The PTA could be improved. Currently, companies often have multiple domains and sometimes it's difficult to implement CyberArk in this kind of infrastructure. For example, you can add CPM (Central Policy Manager) and PSM (Privileged Session Manager and PVWA (Password Vault Web Access) for access, but if you want to add PTA (Privileged Threat Analysis) to scan Vault logs, it is difficult because this component may be adding multiple domain environments."
"Their post-sale support area requires a big improvement. Customers cannot automate tickets directly with CyberArk. They have to come through the distributor or bring in partners who have access to the support portal. Basically, the support for post-sales implementation is there, but the role of CyberArk is very minimal. Customers have to rely on partners, which sometimes creates issues. Some of the vendors help you during the implementation process, but the CyberArk support team does not do that. They have 24/7 support for our region, but they help only if there is an emergency or there is a problem with their system. If the password vault is down or the system is down, they provide immediate attention. For almost everything else, they take more time to respond. They give low priority to service-related or migration-related questions."
"The solution could improve by adding more connectors."
"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."
"If you are an administrator or architect, then the solution is kind of complicated, as it is mostly focused on the end user. So, they need to also focus on the people who are implementing it."
"More than the product itself, there is room for improvement in the documentation. The documentation should be very detailed and very structured. It has a lot of good information, on one level, but I feel that it could be more elaborate and more structured."
"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."
"The authentication port is available in CyberArk Alero but not Fortinet products."
"For me, the main issue has to do with the system performance itself."
"The performance of WALLIX Bastion's password manager is very low."
"It would be better if I could manage multiple accounts in one place, like CyberArk. With WALLIX, you can only manage one account, and you are given a separate category. You have to click on each connection to do anything. For example, CyberArk might give three options for one connection if you want to have an interactive user-level experience. But with WALLIX, you have to click three times to get that access. Also, the biggest disadvantage of WALLIX is the reporting. I feel like it's very weak in reporting when compared to the other solutions. As a solution, they're good and stable. But they need to make their reports neater and better. Right now, we're going to the console and then pressing buttons every single time."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 35 reviews while WALLIX Bastion is ranked 9th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 3 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.2, while WALLIX Bastion is rated 8.0. 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 WALLIX Bastion writes "A stable privileged access managed service with an useful secure and seamless access management feature". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Azure Active Directory (Azure AD), Delinea Secret Server, SailPoint IdentityIQ and BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, whereas WALLIX Bastion is most compared with BeyondTrust Privileged Remote Access, One Identity Safeguard, Delinea Secret Server, ManageEngine Password Manager Pro and Fudo PAM. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. WALLIX Bastion report.
See our list of best Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors.
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.
