No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Fudo PAM vs One Identity Safeguard comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 2024

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

Fudo PAM
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
One Identity Safeguard
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
2nd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
83
Ranking in other categories
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (3rd), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of Fudo PAM is 2.4%, down from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of One Identity Safeguard is 4.4%, up from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Privileged Access Management (PAM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
One Identity Safeguard4.4%
Fudo PAM2.4%
Other93.2%
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
 

Featured Reviews

TD
BDM at Oberig-it
Works with SCTP, STTPS, SQL, and MySQL protocols
There are some areas for improvement in the Fudo PAM cake that we want to improve in terms of scaling. Scaling is an optional feature because we closed some big projects with enterprise customers from different countries, including Ukraine, Kaloxetine, Uzbekistan, and others. We closed projects in different areas with customers of different sizes. When we talk about enterprise customers, we should consider that they have different use cases and desires for Fudo PAM. We compared our options for customers to choose their vendors, and we discovered Fudo PAM has few scaling options. In Fudo PAM, there should be additional features for scaling and organizing remote sessions for remote systems in remote networks.
Mahesh Malve - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Business Development Executive at DigitalTrack Solutions Ind Pvt Ltd
Centralized control has strengthened privileged security and simplified audit investigations
While One Identity Safeguard is a strong and reliable PAM solution, there are a few areas where it can be further improved to enhance user experience and scalability. Regarding the user interface and experience, the UI, while functional, can be a bit complex for new users. A more intuitive and modern dashboard with simplified navigation would improve adoption, especially for non-technical stakeholders. Regarding integration flexibility, although it supports major integrations, expanding out-of-the-box connectors for more cloud-native apps, DevOps tools, and SaaS platforms would be beneficial. Faster and simpler API-based integrations could reduce deployment efforts. Regarding scalability and performance in large enterprise environments, performance tuning and scaling can require additional efforts. Enhancing seamless scalability and high availability configuration would improve enterprise readiness.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This is a solution that I recommend because it is a simple privileged access management system that is done very well."
"Right now we are encouraging our customers to use Fudo PAM because it is the only product in PAM technology that we have to offer them."
"Session recording and password management are the two main aspects."
"Fudo PAM was the most flexible and intuitive interface out of all of the products in the PAM sector."
"it's perfect to control and administer computers in our company."
"I think that Fudo Privileged Access Management is a very good program."
"We are convinced that Fudo PAM is better than competing products like WALLIX."
"The main benefit of the solution is that it's very easy to set up. It only takes a couple of hours to install everything."
"In terms of the user experience, it is a pretty useful product. It works in a good way."
"One Identity Safeguard has a noticeable positive impact around security and operational efficiency, providing secure, strong security, real-time monitoring, and full visibility."
"One Identity Safeguard has positively impacted our organization by providing strong security, compliance, and the data required for audits, making it really helpful."
"By comparison, Safeguard is much better in terms of performance, networking, and server stability."
"One Identity Safeguard has improved our organization's security posture by providing centralized privileged access management, secure password vaulting, and session monitoring."
"One Identity Safeguard has positively impacted us because the fear of theft of passwords or IDs has been reduced to almost zero, significantly enhancing our security."
"One Identity Safeguard is powerful because it provides beneficial features that support clean integration with different tools, significantly improving security and automation processes."
"There is ease of implementation."
 

Cons

"The configuration is difficult."
"Fudo PAM’s scalability is not very strong."
"Professional training and certification would be great."
"Professional training and certification would be great."
"I would like to see better server management. You have to know exactly what you're looking for to get the right server."
"The stability is not very good."
"To tell you the truth, I find that Fudo is not very stable and we had some issues during the implementation."
"The configuration is difficult."
"One Identity Safeguard could be improved with a more user-friendly interface and simpler initial setup, as the learning curve can be somewhat steep."
"We've had issues managing accounts and access to some data saved on the servers. Accounts are granted a new working certificate daily. We have an account to do it on APIs online and sync it with that. If the path changes at some point or someone changes the password, I don't know if it's from the Active Directory or what."
"Many team members feel that the biggest friction with One Identity Safeguard relates to access requests, session approvals, and policy changes, which require more clicks than expected."
"The reason it is not a perfect ten is mainly because of usability and operational friction in some scenarios."
"We can't review or audit HTTP and HTTPS. This functionality should be added so that we can review and audit HTTP and HTTPS."
"One Identity Safeguard can be improved by fixing the documentation, which is very convoluted as of now, and addressing versioning, as some major bugs and issues are not documented well enough in the documentation, along with some patches and fixes."
"From a management point of view, it would be beneficial if One Identity Safeguard Privilege Password and One Identity Safeguard Privilege Session had a more similar interface."
"One Identity Safeguard can be improved in areas such as UI modernization."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is great. We've been given discounts that make it cheaper than using any other solution."
"They offer a fair price for a robust solution."
"The license is around $3,000 per month."
"Setup cost, pricing and licensing are all very expensive."
"Its subscription cost is too much, and sometimes, it is very difficult to pitch the solution to the management for cost approval. If the cost is reduced a little bit, it would be easier. If its cost was less, many other organizations that currently cannot afford it would be able to use this technology. I'm sure many organizations around the globe are having issues with identity management, and it is a very difficult task for IT to manage privileged accounts."
"Our licensing costs are on a yearly basis."
"It is more expensive than Secret Server but way less expensive than CyberArk. As a customer, I would like the pricing to be lower, but it has a good price point."
"The license is very expensive for us, partly due to inflation and partly because of the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Iranian Rial. We purchased a perpetual license that we've been using up until now, but I believe that we are not going to update it in the future. Instead, we plan to find another third-party to support us with the license, in the sense that we would have access to their license as a shared agreement."
"Safeguard is cheaper than CyberArk."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
896,387 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
13%
Government
12%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
University
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Retailer
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business72
Midsize Enterprise27
Large Enterprise33
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Safeguard?
One Identity Safeguard is positioned as an enterprise-grade PAM solution, so the cost is on the higher side.
What needs improvement with One Identity Safeguard?
One Identity Safeguard is a strong PAM solution, but there are some areas for improvement. The initial deployment and integration process can be complex in large enterprise environments. The user i...
What is your primary use case for One Identity Safeguard?
My main use case for One Identity Safeguard is that it serves as a secure, strong PAM solution, and we are using it for PAM authentication. In daily work, we use One Identity Safeguard for privileg...
 

Also Known As

Fudo Privileged Access Management
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

KFC, BP, Santander, Burger King, ING, Starbucks, Yahoo, DHL
Cavium
Find out what your peers are saying about Fudo PAM vs. One Identity Safeguard and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,387 professionals have used our research since 2012.