We performed a comparison between CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint 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 most valuable feature of the solution is its performance."
"Users can scale the solution."
"The product is very flexible"
"The department management aspect of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"It has drastically reduced the attack surface for local administrative rights and the chance of escalation of privilege. We've removed, at this point, close to 98 percent of the local administrative accounts on workstations. If there were an incident, it would stop at that point and we'd be able to know."
"The product is stable."
"The most valuable feature is that their database is completely encrypted and protected with multiple layers."
"The solution allows me to give access and privileges to each user individually"
"The most valuable feature is ransomware protection, which can detect malicious activity from IPs or a malicious payload in DLLs, or other things that can corrupt the system."
"The most important and the most relevant features of Defender for Endpoint are the malware and ransomware protection."
"The detection features are valuable, as is the fact that it is easier to port these logs into Sentinel. That is also useful for us. It is more comprehensive."
"The EDR feature is most valuable."
"It doesn't cause the slowness of the system, which is one of the reasons why I like it."
"One of the valuable features of the solution is the small updates that keep my machine relatively clean from any infections."
"The stability keeps getting better and better."
"It's very easy to scale because it comes built-in with Windows 10, and you just need to enable it. This can be done on scale using group policies or through Endpoint Manager on cloud or Intune."
"It's an old product and has many areas that can be improved."
"The solution's pricing could be better."
"Compared to other tools like Linux, this solution isn't as user-friendly."
"The solution can be complex to use at times."
"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager can be better by making its UI more consistent."
"The product needs a streamlined user interface; improvements to the user interface can enhance user experience and make the solution more intuitive to navigate."
"One area that has room for improvement is in managing the credentials for network devices."
"We have had some major issues with the tool, but we have worked with the R&D teams and we have worked with support. There is room for improvement, especially on response times. But they're working on it and they're doing the best they can."
"I would like to have a dashboard that shows an overview of the results for the enterprise."
"Defender's cloud integration could be improved."
"I would like to see online updates for patches for this solution. I would also like to see online information about what is trending in the market in terms of spams, viruses, or trojans. It takes some time to understand how this solution works. A few things are unclear at the beginning, such as whether it actually restricts the virus or spam at the initial stage, or when there is a security update, how will we come to know and how will it get synchronized. It would be really helpful if there is some kind of knowledge base in the form of video, audio, or document that can explain in a user-friendly way the setup, features, risks, and process to mitigate the risks. Currently, I have installed endpoint security for every individual system. I could not install it like other endpoint solutions where we have a server and a client. It would be really helpful if Microsoft Windows Defender has a server-client based model so that I can save some bandwidth when it downloads or uploads features. It will be helpful if we have a LAN-based or WAN-based controlling system."
"The solution has minimal customization options, especially compared to Mandiant, so we want to see more scope for customization. A single portal for customization would also be a welcome addition."
"One thing that was lacking in Defender was web filtering. Its web filtering wasn't as comprehensive. Sophos was a little bit better than Defender for blocking URLs or installing programs."
"It's not quite a mature solution just yet. It needs more time to grow and develop."
"This solution is not secure, which is why I have moved to Linux."
"Features like device inventory continue to lack essential workstation drill-downs showing the entire device information with the least effort."
More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is ranked 6th in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 28 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 1st in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 182 reviews. CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager writes "Offers integrated solutions and expands its capabilities through strategic acquisitions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is most compared with BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management, CrowdStrike Falcon, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Tanium and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Trellix Endpoint Security and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint 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.
