No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ARCON Privileged Access Management vs Symantec Privileged Access Manager comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

ARCON Privileged Access Man...
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
12th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Symantec Privileged Access ...
Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)
15th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of ARCON Privileged Access Management is 2.0%, down from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Symantec Privileged Access Manager is 1.9%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Privileged Access Management (PAM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
ARCON Privileged Access Management2.0%
Symantec Privileged Access Manager1.9%
Other96.1%
Privileged Access Management (PAM)
 

Featured Reviews

DS
System and DBA at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Enhanced security through session monitoring and activity recording
From an end-user point of view, it would be beneficial if the system could provide information about the last login. This would help identify if the server was accessed by me or if someone has potentially stolen my credentials. It would provide a clearer picture of whether ARCON Privileged Access Management is accessed by an authentic user.
Muzi Lubisi - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior technical Consultant at CA Africa
Secure management of sensitive servers and seamless applications with direct linking
The credential injection feature is highly valued, particularly for RDP sessions. A majority of customers use it for RDP, and a couple for Linux servers. The broader capabilities, including access to multiple systems, web-based applications, and clustering, have never posed an issue. The threat analytics aspect is also a robust feature that analyzes all pertinent information.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not complex at all."
"The deployment process for the solution was easy...The solution's technical support team was good."
"One of the main benefits we've experienced is that Arcon helps us manage all our team's tasks and provides recording capabilities."
"The best part of this product is the administrator convenience. The portal is very user-friendly. An administrator can use it very easily."
"Technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten."
"Pricing and licensing are good, very aggressive."
"One standout feature of ARCON is its ability to resolve lagging issues, especially noticeable in Linux environments."
"The most valuable feature of ARCON Privileged Access Management is the recording of sessions, and it has all the basic features we need to fulfill our use case."
"CA PAM is the least expensive option than most and is easy to deploy."
"The key benefits are we improve our governance. We ensure we can build more trust in the way we run and operate our environment, and most of all is the accountability."
"You can do A2A integration. You can have your own script, which can then run outside of PA to retrieve the password and perform other tasks."
"So all the different roles (such as database admin, Unix admin, network administrator), are now centralized into one system."
"It is the best product for monitoring the recorded session of your IT admins and external consultants."
"The system is very stable."
"Now, all the privileged access is tunneled through PAM."
"The password vault and access to the systems are the most valuable features."
 

Cons

"I suggest implementing password rotation for service-based accounts, as that should be included."
"They they should focus on support. The support needs to be very strong. Since the product is becoming stronger, their support team also should be equally strong. They should respond to open queries within the time limit they have set. Their support team should be more technical, to understand the issue or the set up."
"This product is lacking in terms of dashboarding analytics and should have user behavior analytics. It should also have better dashboarding for executive management and security managers, which this product is missing."
"They should respond to open queries within the time limit they have set."
"Bulk password automation is not available in ARCON when compared to other products."
"The product is good but a lot of things can be changed, the way the system has been designed."
"If an ID gets locked, the tool cannot unlock it, making it an area where improvements are required."
"I think hazard flow could be improved, the data compliance part."
"The service account management functionality needs to be extended to application pools, SQL database, PowerShell scripts, service account discovery, etc."
"Technical support is average. They took a long time to provide good answers, only recommended to upgrade SW version which in some environments is not an option and they don’t even know if that will fix the problem."
"Yes, at first the cluster desynchronizes often."
"What I hope happens with the new product CA PAM is to keep all the useful features that exist in PA, but what I’ve noticed with many new products is the UI gets polished but systems lags stability and performance or it adds additional complexity instead of simplifying the user experience."
"Stability is a problem that we fight every day."
"So far, with the functionality of what we had, there has not been much improvement at this point of time."
"Yeah, it still does not support HA in Multi AZ subnets."
"The live session recording is still not in the features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I am not in a position to give any financials, but whatever we have paid, it is value for money. Their licensing model is good. They have been flexible for us."
"The licensing is simple, and there are only two types licensing: device licensing and user-based licensing."
"Product pricing is based on users and connections. We did not have to pay more for additional features."
"The product's pricing is good value. Go for user-based licensing, without any limit on the target servers."
"The solution’s pricing is neither cheap nor expensive."
"Their licensing model is very simple, as it is based on the number of endpoints which you want to manage along with the number of users and administrators which you want to use."
"They do have some licenses, which are required for things like Linux servers. However, in my environment, we do not have Linux servers."
"The pricing and licensing model is very economical."
"It is reasonably priced."
"Pricing is fair compared to other top vendors."
"They offer per-device, per-user, or monthly and yearly licensing models."
"The licensing is simple and scalable."
"I would prefer better licensing options for the 20-100 users we have at a given time."
"The prices are not low, but one can ask for a discount. It’s not the cheapest PAM solution."
"Cost-wise, CA was better compared to others in the market. ​"
"The version we are using is affordable compared to BeyondTrust, which is maybe three to four times as expensive, but it depends on the features."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Construction Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
21%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise17
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise30
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with ARCON Privileged Access Management?
From an end-user point of view, it would be beneficial if the system could provide information about the last login. This would help identify if the server was accessed by me or if someone has pote...
What is your primary use case for ARCON Privileged Access Management?
Currently, I access our server through the R-Course application, which serves as a part of RDP, Remote ( /products/remote-reviews ) Desktop. However, I connect to my RDP server through the ARCON Pr...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Symantec Privileged Access Manager?
Due to the nature of the solution, it is hard to gauge, but compared to competitors, the pricing is very good. I would rate it as an eight and a half out of ten.
What needs improvement with Symantec Privileged Access Manager?
Recent releases need improvement in webpage management. For instance, navigating through a webpage that acts like a wizard, where I proceed to the next page and enter more information, is not handl...
What is your primary use case for Symantec Privileged Access Manager?
With the customers that I have so far, I help them broker RDP sessions to sensitive servers, particularly those that manage aspects like physical access. I have also done it for backend databases, ...
 

Also Known As

ARCON ARCOS, ARCON PAM
CA PAM, Xceedium Xsuite, CA Privileged Access Manager
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

RAK Bank, AXIS Bank, Reliance Capital, Kotak Life Insurance, MTS
NEOVERA, Telesis, eSoft
Find out what your peers are saying about ARCON Privileged Access Management vs. Symantec Privileged Access Manager and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.