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

HashiCorp Boundary vs Idira Endpoint Privilege Manager comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 2, 2026

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

HashiCorp Boundary
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
23rd
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
2.2
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Idira Endpoint Privilege Ma...
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Endpoint Compliance (5th), Anti-Malware Tools (10th), Application Control (5th), Ransomware Protection (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of HashiCorp Boundary is 1.3%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Idira Endpoint Privilege Manager is 2.5%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Privileged Access Management (PAM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Idira Endpoint Privilege Manager2.5%
HashiCorp Boundary1.3%
Other96.2%
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
 

Featured Reviews

David Gidony - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution architect security and AI specialist at Terasky
Remote access to private lab hosts has become smoother while session control still needs refinement
HashiCorp Boundary can be improved in a few ways. The RDP session connection was recently introduced, which was a long-time feature that everyone was waiting for. Improving the desktop client and making it more elegant, fast, and optimized would be beneficial. I saw that there are new features allowing credential injection to RDP sessions and other useful functionalities that were among the top features I was looking for. I haven't had the chance to try them yet, but I saw demos that they already exist. The role-based access and permission granting is a bit complex and not intuitive. I work by myself and don't have many users to manage, but when it comes to scale, there might be a better way to manage access. The desktop app can be improved since it is slower than I would prefer, and session timeouts are a bit opaque. You don't really know how it's handling the session; sometimes the session ends and sometimes it's still alive. I find myself reactivating a session or needing to reconnect often. It could be more organized in that sense. A feature to close all active connections would help because currently, you have to go one by one and use the mouse to click on disconnect. If you have multiple sessions open, it might take some time because once you press cancel, you have to wait for a few seconds.
Sumit Chavan - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Consultant at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
Helps secure the infrastructure and control users with admin rights
There are many features that are currently missing. A customization option is required for certain policies. For instance, if we need to stop PowerShell scripting, we have to create a different policy for that. Being able to create a sub-level policy within a top-level policy would be good. Currently, no user-based policy option is available inside the EPM console. We can only create computer-based policies. The database is available, but there is a drawback in not being able to create local groups on the EPM console. We only have to depend on Active Directory. This limits infrastructure security as we depend on the Active Directory team to manage user groups. If they remove any users, we lose control. If we could create groups locally and block them or set specific policies, we would have more control. Local endpoint management is missing from the EPM site. Moreover, there is an issue with policies not running as expected when we make enhancements. We have to find multiple ways to whitelist applications or enhance policies.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Using HashiCorp Boundary has saved me time and made my workflow more efficient in the specific way that I can gain access to these private instances from anywhere."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager has significantly improved our security posture by preventing virus incidents and restricting users from downloading unwanted applications."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is very easy to manage, which I like. The solution also has a dashboard where you can see which software is suspicious, which I find valuable."
"The feature called PTA, which stands for Privileged Threat Analytics keeps track of what admins are doing and works with Centimeters. If something fishy is going on with a user's credentials, it alerts the security team so they can act fast. Plus, it automates stuff like resetting credentials or blocking users. So, if there's a potential hack, CyberArk can change passwords and lock out users in a snap. It also gives you a heads-up if anything unusual is going on with server activities, like someone creating new users with uncontrolled credentials."
"The password rotation and the session recording are the most valuable features."
"Our setup process is moving to the cloud, which is very good. It reduces complexity."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is its scalability."
"In terms of ROI, deploying CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager has secured the infrastructure, which saves money, time, and resources."
 

Cons

"The desktop app can be improved since it is slower than I would prefer, and session timeouts are a bit opaque."
"If you do not have certification, you cannot send a ticket; this makes dealing with technical support difficult."
"CyberArk has some performance issues. For example, servers could not handle the solution when we first took CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager."
"It's an old product and has many areas that can be improved."
"For an experienced system implementer it will take approximately one day. However, for somebody who is inexperienced it may take up to five days."
"One area that has room for improvement is in managing the credentials for network devices."
"Despite newer versions and functionalities, CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager lacks sufficient knowledgeable support staff, resulting in longer wait times for assistance."
"It is hard to deal with technical support if you are not certified."
"The product is expensive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The tool is a bit pricey compared to its competitors. My company does work with competitors, but I don't have hands-on experience with other software. I've just done some comparisons."
"We pay about $17 per user."
"The price of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is expensive. The solution is priced based on the number of accounts onboarded and the number of concurrent sessions. Everyone else is included in the price, such as support."
"licensing for this solution is based on the number of APV (privileged users), and the number of sessions that you want to record."
"The product's license is easy to procure."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is slightly expensive, but costs can be negotiated to become more competitive."
"The tool is priced high. I would rate its pricing an eight out of ten."
"The solution requires an annual license to use it. There can be some extra costs in some cases."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
917,884 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
16%
Outsourcing Company
13%
Construction Company
10%
Healthcare Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise20
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with HashiCorp Boundary?
HashiCorp Boundary can be improved in a few ways. The RDP session connection was recently introduced, which was a long-time feature that everyone was waiting for. Improving the desktop client and m...
What is your primary use case for HashiCorp Boundary?
My main use case for HashiCorp Boundary is gaining access using a reverse proxy tunnel to all kinds of hosts and instances that I don't have a direct public connection to, mostly hosts and servers ...
What advice do you have for others considering HashiCorp Boundary?
The advice I would give to others looking into using HashiCorp Boundary is that if you're a developer or a technical person or use mostly Linux machines and terminals, HashiCorp Boundary can be a g...
Looking for recommendations and a pros/cons template for software to detect insider threats
This is an inside-out --- outside-in --- inside-in question, as an insider can be an outsider as well. There is no short answer other than a blend of a PAM tool with Behavioral Analytics and Endpo...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?
I believe it's quite a reasonably priced solution. It's not very common to use CyberArk because it's a niche solution, but customers who are willing to control administrative accounts are willing t...
What needs improvement with CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?
While CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is a great tool, I believe the functionality could be wider. If it could work not only with permissions but also involve pure EDR tasks or User and Entity ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Viewfinity
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Idira by Palo Alto Networks, One Identity, Okta and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM). Updated: October 2026.
917,884 professionals have used our research since 2012.