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

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs IBM Security Verify Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

CyberArk Privileged Access ...
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
197
Ranking in other categories
User Activity Monitoring (1st), Enterprise Password Managers (3rd), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (1st), Mainframe Security (2nd), Operational Technology (OT) Security (3rd)
IBM Security Verify Access
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Single Sign-On (SSO) (14th), Identity Management (IM) (24th), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (17th), Access Management (13th)
 

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.
Jared Ochieng - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers multiple authentication methods like tokens and one-time passwords
The authentication process with IBM Security Verify Access is good and is considered one of the best identity and access management solutions. It helps with multi-factor authentication. It offers multiple authentication methods like tokens and one-time passwords, enhancing security. It also includes features like password vaults and single sign-on, streamlining the access process for remote and local users across different solutions. The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options. The policy control feature allows you to set authentication measures and policies for your organization's identity governance. This feature helps create standardized policies and organize them into groups based on departments or specific needs. It simplifies access management for both administrators and users. IBM Security Verify Access can be integrated with almost any solution using APIs. The time required for integration depends on whether the solution is out of the box or custom. Out-of-the-box solutions can be integrated quickly, typically within a few days or hours, while custom solutions may require additional steps and take longer to integrate.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Automates password management to remove the human chain weakness."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it's the best in the market. I haven't seen any other PAM solutions better than CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault."
"When we started with RPA, there was a requirement that every credential and the bots themselves be protected through the PAM system. From the get-go, we've had CyberArk in the middle... We've got a pretty robust RPA implementation with our PAM platform. Users, bots, the credentials — everything is managed via our PAM solution."
"On the customer accounts side, our account managers are responsive. If you ask them, they will get you whomever you need."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is privileged threat analytics."
"It allows users to self-provision access to the accounts that they need."
"We have accomplished our security goals. We have two-factor authenticated and vaulted our important accounts, so people can't just steal stuff from us."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
 

Cons

"To get it to a ten it should give other possibilities to select if you could follow the keystrokes. It should have a flexibility with things where people can use it a lot faster."
"The initial setup was somewhat complex."
"It is very complex and difficult to set up the solution."
"I think they can improve account onboarding. For instance, you have to use the Password Vault utility, whereas in Thycotic I think there is a feature in the user interface that allows you to upload your account with an Excel file. So I'd like to have a similar thing in CyberArk."
"We had an issue with the Copy feature... Apparently, in version 10, that Copy feature does not work. You actually have to click Show and then copy the password from within Show and then paste it. We've had a million tickets and we had to figure out a workaround to it."
"CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault's deployment is complex for resources with little experience. Tech support needs to be improved as well based on quality and knowledge."
"Over the past seven years, I have seen a lot of ups and downs with the product."
"It is web-based, but other competitors have apps. We need to get there. It is just smoother to have an app. You don't have all the bugs from having a browser, and people like them better, since you can get to them via mobile."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
"What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding. We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium. As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is a problem. CyberArk is expensive compared to other products I know. It is similar to buying a German car. It comes with all the bells and whistles, but some companies may find it too expensive."
"With reducing the privileged account access, there has been a huge improvement. They are now bringing more accounts on a little at a time."
"CyberArk DNA is free if you purchase the CyberArk solution. There is no additional charge for CyberArk DNA, which is great."
"I'm a technician so I don't handle the licensing for CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, but I know that the price for the core license is about €140 per year. There's another type of license, the external vendor license, and that's about €600 and you can manage twenty devices. From what I know, the price for one device in a subscription is about €65 per year. You can buy the CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager too, or you can buy some other application or application license with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, but all other features, such as the Analytics Server is included in the basic CyberArk license. With WALLIX, you need to buy separate licenses for the features."
"CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is on the expensive side. It is very expensive."
"I'm aware that the organization had purchased licensing for almost all of CyberArk's solutions including licensing for PTA, EPM, and the Application Identity Manager. But when it comes to PSM, this is one of the components where there's an additional charge for any extra PSMs that you want to deploy. I believe that there's some rider where the vendor has a bit of leeway to, at times, charge a premium on whatever additional services you may require above the board."
"This solution is considered to be more expensive than others out there on the market today."
"The price of this solution is quite reasonable."
"The license and costs depend on the amount range of users you have. For just approximately 2,000 users, the price is practical and fair. However, when you have 20,000 users, it starts to become really expensive, and the discount per user is not attractive enough to go ahead and purchase."
"It costs about 300K AED for a year. Its pricing is a bit on the higher end, but in comparison to other products in the market, its price is still better. There are lots of other products that are very costly."
"The product is not expensive. It depends on the number of users."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
32%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Insurance Company
18%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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.
What do you like most about IBM Security Access Manager?
The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via ema...
What needs improvement with IBM Security Access Manager?
The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial.
 

Also Known As

CyberArk Privileged Access Security, CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault
IBM Security Verify Access (SVA), IBM Security Access Manager, ISAM
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Rockwell Automation
POST Luxembourg
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. IBM Security Verify Access and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.