We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Fudo PAM 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."I'm no longer the product owner for PAM, but I can say that the most useful feature is the vault functionality, which keeps all your passwords secure in a digital vault."
"The solution helps our developers access internal systems. It also helps us in Privilege Access Management."
"It helps our customers in their software requirement imports."
"The most valuable features of the solution are control and analytics."
"The credentials management capability is key to ensuring that the credentials are kept secure and that access to them is done on a temporary and event-driven basis."
"You can write different types of policies for custom business needs or any developer needs. If they need certain functions allocated, they can be customized easily."
"It takes people out of the machine work of ensuring credentials remain up-to-date, and handles connection brokering such that human usage and credential management remain independent."
"This is a complete solution that can detect cyber attacks well."
"it's perfect to control and administer computers in our company."
"We are convinced that Fudo PAM is better than competing products like WALLIX."
"Session recording and password management are the two main aspects."
"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."
"Fudo PAM was the most flexible and intuitive interface out of all of the products in the PAM sector."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager could improve the integration docking, it should have more layers. For example, integration with OpenShift."
"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."
"They need to provide better training for the System Integrator."
"Tech support staff can be more proactive."
"The initial setup has room for improvement to be more straightforward."
"Initially, there was a lot of hiccups, because there were a lot of transitions due to manual installations."
"We would like to expand the usage of the auto discovery accounts feed, then on our end, tie in the REST API for automation."
"The product documentation has to be more precise in certain aspects with explanations for functionality limitations along with reference material or screenshots."
"Fudo PAM’s scalability is not very strong."
"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."
"The configuration is difficult."
More CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is ranked 1st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 144 reviews while Fudo PAM is ranked 21st in Privileged Access Management (PAM) with 5 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Fudo PAM 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 Fudo PAM writes "Easy to install but needs to provide better server management and organization". CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Microsoft Entra ID, Delinea Secret Server, WALLIX Bastion and One Identity Safeguard, whereas Fudo PAM is most compared with WALLIX Bastion, Delinea Secret Server, One Identity Safeguard, Teleport and ManageEngine PAM360. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Fudo PAM 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.