CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Reviews

CyberArk is a good, profitable, and most valuable solution.

While testing the functionality of PAM, we weren't merely conducting a standard PAM evaluation. We aimed to establish a connection and successfully received a response from the target PAM component.

The product’s pricing could be improved.

I have been using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager as a partner and implementor.

The product is stable. If you make some changes or something, it's stable.

The solution is scalable. We cater it to enterprise businesses.

Customer support takes too much time to provide some response. When you open some cases, sometimes it takes one or two weeks to get some people to know the problem and how they will help us.

Neutral

The initial setup takes a few days to complete.

I rate the initial setup a six out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

The product is expensive.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We are using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager because we have too many accounts and we need to manage them.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager has helped our organization by controlling users' access.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager could improve the integration docking, it should have more layers. For example, integration with OpenShift.

I have been using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager for approximately two years.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is stable.

We have thousands of users using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager in my organization.

The support from CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is good.

The initial setup of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager was straightforward.

We had a local third-party company help us with the implementation of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. The maintenance is sometimes a challenge for our consulting team that does it.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate CyberArk Privileged Access Manager a nine out of ten.

CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault is important to do privileged session management, access a privileged access manager. Additionally, it is important to do segmentation in your core environment with the support team. For example, it is doing access monitoring support in our servers.

The privileged support manager is the most valuable feature of CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault.

The interface could be improved it is not user-friendly, but they have improved but it could still improve. In the policies configuration, it would be a benefit to have more details.

I have been using CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault for approximately five years.

CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault is stable.

I have found CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault not to be scalable. There are hardware limitations.

The technical support is very good and helpful.

The initial installation is difficult because of the configuration. The process involved with the privileged access cycle is not easy to connect the process with the technology from CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault.

I rate CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault an eight out of ten.

This solution is used primarily for privileged segment access and break-glass access. We also use it for log-on session recording and access control, where we can grant access to our key systems for ad-hoc use.

The most valuable feature is the ability to delegate access to admins when they need it. It allows us to have some kind of proof on the approval process, rather than give people standing access on a full-time basis.

I would prefer that this is a fully-managed service, rather than have to manage the software ourselves and keep it up to date. A cloud-based deployment would ultimately be better for us than an on-premises appliance.

Stability has not been a problem.

We didn't have any issues with scalability, although we only have 30 or 40 systems integrated. There were not tens of thousands.

We did not need to contact technical support.

The initial setup was not very hard, although it took a little while to get it set up. The only difficult part is making sure that it is integrated with all of the applications. If you've got Active Directory then it is easy, and pretty straightforward. If instead, you have all local accounts then it can get a lot harder, although I don't think that any other application can improve it if you've got local accounts everywhere.

The actual installation that included getting it up and running was pretty quick, taking only a couple of days. Going through all of the change management and other processes took much longer, on the order of months. The more problems there are with accounts inside the organization, the longer the deployment will take.

Our in-house team was responsible for the deployment.

The price of this solution is expensive.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to get the admins familiar with the setup. They have to learn how to get the process approved, especially in an ad-hoc scenario. The scheduled changes are ok, but the ad-hoc ones can be a little bit problematic if you don't have enough approvals ready to approve access.

If an organization can afford it then the Cyberark Enterprise Password Vault works well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case is password management. 

I find the threat analytics is an important feature. CyberArk can look at the log details, and analyze who is using the applications, which are their locations, and which are the IP locations from which they are accessing. This enables the solution to find the exact location the threat is emanating from. We really value this feature.

The usual workload on the system is sometimes delayed by CyberArk. So, any major work is getting delayed, and may take twice the amount of time that it usually does. For instance, if there's a password change of an account it will take time because you have to log in, then  authenticate, and this is followed by delays. It becomes cumbersome and frustrating.

It is a stable product. 

The scalability of the solution is good. We expanded, and we found the biggest part was a bit unfomfortable in terms of product. They are designing, leveraging the features so greater different markets are joined. On the ground it was difficult initially.

I found techincal support is adequate. The Indian team is not so good. They are OK with helping, but not all of the engineers are entirely experienced. 

The initial setup was OK. If I set up one box, one automation, one machine, within one program, it is O. But, if I have multiple locations in Japan, China, Asia, Singapore, and the like, I will have some trouble. I have faced this problem in the past. 

It is quite costly. The license is a concern for some of the clients. 

I have previous experience with Oracle in the past. There is an ease of use with Oracle, because it is small and not very complex. You can wrap your work in a single day with Oracle. In comparison, the API is quite small with CyberArk. But, the product itself is so robust.

The ability to create custom connector components is the most valuable feature of the product. Once the organisation matures in their privileged access strategy, CyberArk’s customisation capability allows you to target application-level access (e.g., web-based management consoles) as opposed to just the underlying operating system. The API allows operational efficiency improvements, through being able to programmatically provision accounts into the Vault.

It has improved our organization by being able to consolidate several privileged access technologies into a unified tool. Session recording and auditing capability, and approval workflows allow a high degree of control over the organisation’s privileged access requirements for compliance purposes.

• Authentication to the solution: Authentication to the PVWA utilises integration to IIS. Therefore, it is not as strong as desired.
• Reporting capability and customisation: Reporting utilises predefined templates with limited customisation capability.

I have used it for 15 months; approximately nine months in a large enterprise.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. The solution is fairly scalable. All presentation-level components are operable in highly available configurations.

Technical support is 8/10; level of engagement depends on severity of problem.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Initial configuration is quite complex and takes a considerable amount of time. However, this depends on the management requirements of the organisation. An example of this is connectors to mainframes, which might require a degree of customisation and knowledge of how the password manager functions (and relevant training). Setup regarding installation is straightforward, as the provided guides are quite expansive and include several installation possibilities (e.g., standalone, HA, DR, etc.)

Appropriately scope the organisation’s requirements to ensure licenses are not over-provisioned.

I was not part of the selection process.

If an organisation has not utilised a PAM tool before, it is a large cultural change fundamentally in how a user works, and should be taken into consideration accordingly. The solution is complex depending on the requirements; therefore, the implementation should not be rushed and it should be tested appropriately.

I see the Auto IT integration as the most valuable feature.

I have seen improvements compared to the older versions and the integration of Auto IT provided the flexibility to add thick clients and websites.

Session recording search capability has to be improved. It should include more platforms for password management. It should include more thick client integrations.

I used it for almost six years.

There is dependency on Windows tasks and if any AD GPO changes are pushed, it affects the system and stops working.

I have not encountered any scalability issues. The product scales as the organisation grows.

Technical support from the vendor is the worst and that is one reason I stopped using CyberArk.

The initial setup is not so complex, but CyberArk does require more servers for a full-fledged installation.

The solution is costly and the licensing is very complex.

I was using CyberArk for more than six years and I have now switched to ARCOS. I was impressed with ARCOS because of the following reasons:

• Cost-effective solution
• Fewer servers required
• Flexibility, performance
• More features
• Simple licensing
• Good support

I evaluated other solutions such as Leiberman, ManageEngine, TPAM, and Xceedium.

ARCOS seems to be very promising and cost effective. Also, ARCOS doesn’t have a traditional jump server concept, which saves the customer from spending more on hardware. The licensing is very simple (number of admins & target IPs), where most of the features are available by default with the basic license.

CyberArk architecture is good and more secure, but I see the solution as expensive. Support is the worst; CyberArkstaff is not supportive, their professional service team charges for each and every thing.

The accounts are maintained automatically. Hence, resource and administration costs are less. 

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. 

I have been working with the product for more than five years. 

The product is very stable. 

CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault is scalable. 

CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault's deployment can be done with two to three resources. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.