Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.8
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager's support is efficient and knowledgeable, but response times and communication can vary, especially with outsourcing.
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
6.7
Enhancements sought include user-friendliness, integration, automation, reporting, customization, API support, cost efficiency, deployment, documentation, and updates.
No sentiment score available
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager offers seamless and flexible scalability for organizations, though licensing challenges may occur.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
5.0
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is costly but offers high value and comprehensive security, with subscription models benefiting larger installations.
No sentiment score available
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is stable, with occasional bugs, but upgrades and redundancy features improve reliability and performance.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.5
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager enhances security with automatic password rotation, session monitoring, and supports large-scale, compliant deployments.
No sentiment score available
 

Categories and Ranking

CyberArk Privileged Access ...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
193
Ranking in other categories
User Activity Monitoring (1st), Enterprise Password Managers (2nd), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (1st), Mainframe Security (3rd), Operational Technology (OT) Security (3rd)
IBM Security Identity Gover...
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
User Provisioning Software (13th), Identity Management (IM) (29th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Identity and Access Management solutions, they serve different purposes. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is designed for Privileged Access Management (PAM) and holds a mindshare of 21.2%, down 24.0% compared to last year.
IBM Security Identity Governance and Intelligence, on the other hand, focuses on User Provisioning Software, holds 2.1% mindshare, up 2.1% since last year.
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
User Provisioning Software
 

Featured Reviews

SatishIyer - PeerSpot reviewer
Lets you ensure relevant, compliant access in good time and with an audit trail, yet lacks clarity on MITRE ATT&CK
When I was a component owner for PAM's Privileged Threat Analytics (PTA) component, what I wanted was a clear mapping to the MITRE ATT&CK framework, a framework which has a comprehensive list of use cases. We reached out to the vendor and asked them how much coverage they have of the uses cases found on MITRE, which would have given us a better view of things while I was the product owner. Unfortunately they did not have the capability of mapping onto MITRE's framework at that time. PTA is essentially the monitoring interface of the broker (e.g. Privileged Access Management, the Vault, CPM, PSM, etc.), and it's where you can capture your broker bypass and perform related actions. For this reason, we thought that this kind of mapping would be required, but CyberArk informed us that they did not have the capability we had in mind with regard to MITRE ATT&CK. I am not sure what the situation is now, but it would definitely help to have that kind of alignment with one of the more well-known frameworks like MITRE. For CyberArk as a vendor, it would also help them to clearly spell out in which areas they have full functionality and in which ares they have partial or none. Of course, it also greatly benefits the customers when they're evaluating the product.
Siraz Shaik - PeerSpot reviewer
Clear evaluation and life cycle management; service center could be more user friendly
Our primary use case is for publishing and our customer has somewhere between 3,000-4,000 users. We're partners with IBM and I work as a security consultant.  This solution has a very good dashboard and the documentation is also very good. Life cycle management and governance are also good…
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
31%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Government
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Sailpoint IdentityIQ compare with CyberArk PAM?
We evaluated Sailpoint IdentityIQ before ultimately choosing CyberArk. Sailpoint Identity Platform is a solution to manage risks in cloud enterprise environments. It automates and streamlines the m...
What do you like most about CyberArk Privileged Access Manager?
The most valuable features of the solution are control and analytics.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Privileged Access Manager?
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager comes at a high cost. But the solution is worth its price.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

CyberArk Privileged Access Security, CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault
IGI, IBM Security Identity Manager, ISIM
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rockwell Automation
E.ON Global Commodities
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, Delinea, One Identity and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM). Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.