We performed a comparison between CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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."Ensures accounts are managed according to corporate policies."
"The central password manager is the most valuable feature because the password is constantly changing. If an outsider threat came in and gained access to one of those passwords, they would not have access for long."
"The combination of CPM and PSM resolves a lot of use cases."
"It helps our customers in their software requirement imports."
"We know when passwords will be expiring so we can force users to change their passwords, as well as requiring specific password requirements for length, complexity, etc."
"We can make a policy that affects everybody instantly."
"CyberArk has resulted in a massive increase in our security footprint."
"It is a single tool that isolates possible kinds of malware. You get lateral movement blocking and auditing information, e.g., you know who is doing what. You are getting protections from the service as well as a useful environment. All your admins can easily go in and out of your company while accessing your servers in a secure way, even if they are working abroad."
"The most valuable feature is the Automatic Verdict, to recognize whether something is a threat, or not."
"WildFire's application encryption is useful."
"High availability with active-active and active-passive modes."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"Remote access is excellent."
"I give the initial setup an eight out of ten."
"Scalable ATP solution that's quick to set up. It demonstrates good performance and stability."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"It is very complex and difficult to set up the solution."
"The continuous scanning of the assets is limited to Windows and Unix. We like to have the solution scan any databases, network devices, and security devices for privileged accounts. That would be very helpful."
"CyberArk PAM is a very broad product as everyone's requirements for implementation are different. In our particular case, the initial implementation was planned and developed by people who didn't know our specific network requirements, so the initial implementation needed to be tweaked over time. While this is normal, at the time all these "major" changes required CyberArk professional services to come in-plant and "assist" with the changes."
"We would like to expand the usage of the auto discovery accounts feed, then on our end, tie in the REST API for automation."
"They are sometimes not flexible with things. For instance, from one day to another, there might be something that had been done years ago by CyberArk, then they say, "We do not support that." You then have to initiate a complaint and start working with them. Things might become complicated and months pass while you are working with them. Usually, they are good and fast, but sometimes they seem to be blocked with problems, e.g., you will suddenly be working with another team instead of the team that you were working with the day before."
"CyberArk has to continue to evolve with that threat landscape to make sure that they're still protecting those credentials that are owned by those that have privileged accounts in the firms."
"The major pain point that we have is the capacity of CyberArk due to the sheer volume of NPAs that we are managing. We are a large organization and we have hundreds of thousands of non-personal accounts to manage. We have already found out that there are certain capacity limitations within CyberArk that might introduce performance issues. From my perspective, something that would be valuable would be if the vault could hold more passwords and be more scalable."
"We found a lot of errors during the initial setup. They should work to improve the implementation experience and to remove errors from the process."
"The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes."
"As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting."
"The GUI is better in 8.0, but I still feel it lacks the fast response most of us desire. Logs are much quicker."
"Management and web filtering can be improved. There should also be better reporting, particularly around web filtering."
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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is rated 8.8, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Proofpoint Email Protection. See our CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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.