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)
25th
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
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (4th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of Fudo PAM is 2.3%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of One Identity Safeguard is 4.4%, up from 4.3% 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 PAM2.3%
Other93.3%
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

"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."
"Fudo PAM was the most flexible and intuitive interface out of all of the products in the PAM sector."
"I think that Fudo Privileged Access Management is a very good program."
"Session recording and password management are the two main aspects."
"This is a solution that I recommend because it is a simple privileged access management system that is done very well."
"We are convinced that Fudo PAM is better than competing products like WALLIX."
"it's perfect to control and administer computers in our company."
"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."
"The first feature I like about One Identity Safeguard is the live contact point for the VPNs. This has been working very well for us, as it's both highly available and reliable."
"I have seen a clear return on investment with One Identity Safeguard, reducing manual effort for access management by around thirty to forty percent, decreasing audit preparation time by nearly fifty percent, and lowering the risks of costly incidents through improved security controls."
"Now, once they are logged into the organization and are registered on our ERP system, their complete access will be ready within five seconds, and they will receive an SMS with their username and password so they can start working, which has increased efficiency and effectiveness of the access control function and reduced operational costs while providing services 24/7 on a platform that can be used anytime and anywhere for investigation."
"It has greatly helped improve our security posture. Safeguard has an option where it will reset passwords on service accounts, then go out to those servers where that service account is running as a service and update the password on it. That makes password changes very easy. We can regularly change passwords now and are planning on making it an annual activity, where all the people who own service accounts will go in and make sure all their passwords get changed, updated, and reset."
"It is easy to manage. There is a very logical, clear user interface. Also, the integration of scripts is thoughtfully implemented. Overall, it's a nice product to manage."
"All sessions are audited and they are indexed/searchable through the GUI."
"It was super easy to deploy, not complicated, and did not have the hidden Capex that competitors do!"
"From my experience, the features are best for monitoring and the usage of LDAP and SSH."
 

Cons

"Professional training and certification would be great."
"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."
"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."
"Professional training and certification would be great."
"Fudo PAM’s scalability is not very strong."
"The configuration is difficult."
"It is a good solution, but it needs more marketing."
"I find it complicated to implement HTTPS monitoring because the documentation is unclear."
"I would like to see an adjustment with more enterprise architecture."
"The product uses a lot of resources in current sessions."
"Our experience with technical support has been disappointing. We require more prompt and faster response times."
"We can't review or audit HTTP and HTTPS. This functionality should be added so that we can review and audit HTTP and HTTPS."
"The main thing that needs improvement is the slowness. Apart from that, the change password check-in feature also needs improvement because it is not working perfectly accurately."
"One Identity Safeguard works well for us overall, but there are several areas where improvements could be made."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is great. We've been given discounts that make it cheaper than using any other solution."
"It was definitely cheaper than the other two products that we evaluated."
"The full license is expensive but if you plan to use it in a big organization then it is the best option because it is more flexible."
"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."
"They offer a fair price for a robust solution."
"Safeguard is cheaper than CyberArk."
"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."
"Setup cost, pricing and licensing are all very expensive."
"The pricing depends on our perspective, our budget, and, of course, the competitors we are taking into account."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
890,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
12%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
University
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business55
Midsize Enterprise26
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Safeguard?
I did not face any challenges with pricing, setup costs, and licensing, but for improved features, I need to address licensing.
What needs improvement with One Identity Safeguard?
The user interface can be improved for better searching of user accounts, and if One Identity enhances its support in that area, it would be very helpful. If One Identity improves integration durin...
What is your primary use case for One Identity Safeguard?
My main use case for One Identity Safeguard in day-to-day work is to provide identity across all user accounts and domains, and it improves security across the enterprise by providing enhanced feat...
 

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.
890,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.