CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs Fudo PAM comparison

CyberArk and Fudo Security are both solutions in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category. CyberArk is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.8, while Fudo Security is ranked #21. CyberArk holds a 2.6% mindshare in PAM, compared to Fudo Security’s 2.8% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of CyberArk users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Fudo Security users who would recommend it.

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege...

Read 38 CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager reviews

3,967 Views
1,190 Comparison Views

86% willing to recommend

Fudo PAM

Read 5 Fudo PAM reviews

1,080 Views
1,069 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege...

Fudo PAM

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 6, 2024

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager and Fudo PAM compete in endpoint security and privileged access management. CyberArk generally has an edge in integration capabilities and customer support, while Fudo PAM offers a better value with its robust features despite higher costs.

Features: CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager offers seamless integration with existing systems, effective privilege management across platforms, and straightforward deployment. Fudo PAM is recognized for its advanced session monitoring, comprehensive suite of security features, and robust recording capabilities.

Room for Improvement: CyberArk users highlight complexities in managing extended features, potential scalability issues, and a need for finer-grain control in configurations. Fudo PAM could benefit from enhanced scalability, more streamlined configuration processes, and reduced learning curve challenges.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: CyberArk provides a straightforward deployment process and responsive customer service. Fudo PAM offers comprehensive training, though it can pose a steeper learning curve.

Pricing and ROI: CyberArk is cost-effective in setup and ongoing expenses, delivering satisfactory ROI. Fudo PAM has a higher initial cost, but users recognize a strong return on investment due to its feature-rich offerings.

To learn more, read our detailed CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 peers since 2012

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

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege...

Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Endpoint Compliance (4th), Anti-Malware Tools (5th), Application Control (3rd), Ransomware Protection (5th)

Fudo PAM

Ranking in Privileged Access Management (PAM)

21st

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Privileged Access Management (PAM) category, the mindshare of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is 2.6%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Fudo PAM is 2.8%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Privileged Access Management (PAM) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager	2.6%
Fudo PAM	2.8%
Other	94.6%

Privileged Access Management (PAM)

Featured Reviews

Sumit Chavan

Lead Consultant at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees

Helps secure the infrastructure and control users with admin rights

There are many features that are currently missing. A customization option is required for certain policies. For instance, if we need to stop PowerShell scripting, we have to create a different policy for that. Being able to create a sub-level policy within a top-level policy would be good. Currently, no user-based policy option is available inside the EPM console. We can only create computer-based policies. The database is available, but there is a drawback in not being able to create local groups on the EPM console. We only have to depend on Active Directory. This limits infrastructure security as we depend on the Active Directory team to manage user groups. If they remove any users, we lose control. If we could create groups locally and block them or set specific policies, we would have more control. Local endpoint management is missing from the EPM site. Moreover, there is an issue with policies not running as expected when we make enhancements. We have to find multiple ways to whitelist applications or enhance policies.

Read full review

Taras Dubrova

BDM at Oberig-it

Works with SCTP, STTPS, SQL, and MySQL protocols

There are some areas for improvement in the Fudo PAM cake that we want to improve in terms of scaling. Scaling is an optional feature because we closed some big projects with enterprise customers from different countries, including Ukraine, Kaloxetine, Uzbekistan, and others. We closed projects in different areas with customers of different sizes. When we talk about enterprise customers, we should consider that they have different use cases and desires for Fudo PAM. We compared our options for customers to choose their vendors, and we discovered Fudo PAM has few scaling options. In Fudo PAM, there should be additional features for scaling and organizing remote sessions for remote systems in remote networks.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It allows whitelisting."

"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager helped us reduce the time for regulatory processes to approximately two to four months, completing the solution and training."

"The product is stable."

"The most valuable feature is the ability to control users with admin rights. Even if developers and senior folks maintain their admin rights, we can still manage their activities."

"Their customer support was excellent."

"I am impressed with the product's seamless integration. The PAM wallet and enterprise password wallet are good also good."

"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is its scalability."

"We can do both server and endpoint protection."

More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager pros

"We are convinced that Fudo PAM is better than competing products like WALLIX."

"it's perfect to control and administer computers in our company."

"Fudo PAM was the most flexible and intuitive interface out of all of the products in the PAM sector."

"Session recording and password management are the two main aspects."

"The main benefit of the solution is that it's very easy to set up. It only takes a couple of hours to install everything."

Cons

"The tool should be more user-friendly."

"The management of Privilege Access is not satisfactory."

"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is not suitable for the current situation because when you compare it to OTP, OTP is the strongest password solution. You can use it as a one-time password, but you have to log into the password manager itself and if you don't change your password, it will be the weakest link in the security. In OTP, you don't have that weakest link."

"The product's threat protection and defense capabilities need enhancement."

"My recommendation for improvement is to add functionality for when users request access to an application. There's a pop-up UI, but it's not very customizable. I suggest creating a UI where we can write scripts or use SDKs to enhance it. This could automatically create tickets in a system like ServiceNow when users request an application. If a manager approves, we could automatically push policies to those users."

"It cannot be on-prem. It is only cloud-based. Sometimes, that's a restriction in terms of usage."

"A customization option is required for certain policies. For instance, if we need to stop PowerShell scripting, we have to create a different policy for that. Being able to create a sub-level policy within a top-level policy would be good."

"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is a perfect solution, but CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager for Linux has many issues. Another area for improvement in CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, specifically for Windows, is that there's no way for you to check credential theft from a text file, such as a notepad file."

More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager cons

"I would like to see better server management. You have to know exactly what you're looking for to get the right server."

"The stability is not very good."

"Professional training and certification would be great."

"The configuration is difficult."

"Fudo PAM’s scalability is not very strong."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I feel that the price of the product is nominal. It must be around 10 to 15 USD per installation. I rate the product price an eight to nine out of ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price."

"We pay about $17 per user."

"The tool's pricing is reasonable for customers."

"The cost for CyberArk is very high."

"I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten since the price can be too high for smaller businesses."

"The product's license is easy to procure."

"CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager has a very high price, so it's a one out of ten for me in terms of pricing."

"I believe it's quite a reasonably priced solution. It's not very common to use CyberArk because it's a niche solution, but customers who are willing to control administrative accounts are willing to pay this money."

More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is great. We've been given discounts that make it cheaper than using any other solution."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

13%

Government

13%

Comms Service Provider

13%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	17
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	18

No data available

Questions from the Community

Looking for recommendations and a pros/cons template for software to detect insider threats

This is an inside-out --- outside-in --- inside-in question, as an insider can be an outsider as well. There is no short answer other than a blend of a PAM tool with Behavioral Analytics and Endpo...

See all answers

What do you like most about CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager?

I believe it's quite a reasonably priced solution. It's not very common to use CyberArk because it's a niche solution, but customers who are willing to control administrative accounts are willing t...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

CrowdStrike Falcon vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

Compared 11% of the time

BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

Compared 9% of the time

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

Compared 8% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

Compared 8% of the time

VMware Carbon Black Endpoint vs CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

Compared 3% of the time

More CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager Competitors

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager vs Fudo PAM

Compared 17% of the time

WALLIX Bastion vs Fudo PAM

Compared 14% of the time

ManageEngine PAM360 vs Fudo PAM

Compared 8% of the time

Teleport vs Fudo PAM

Compared 7% of the time

Delinea Secret Server vs Fudo PAM

Compared 7% of the time

More Fudo PAM Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager

January 2026

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager report

Download CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager product report

Buyer's Guide

Privileged Access Management (PAM)

January 2026

Download Fudo PAM product report

Also Known As

Viewfinity

Fudo Privileged Access Management

Overview

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager, a critical and foundational endpoint control addresses the underlying weaknesses of endpoint defenses against a privileged attacker and helps enterprises defend against these attacks through removing local admin rights, enforcing least privilege, and implementing foundational endpoint security controls across all Windows, macOS and Linux endpoints from hybrid to cloud environments.

Click here for a free 30 day trial: CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager free trial

CyberArk

We are the leading vendor of innovative IT security solutions. We focus on privileged access management and privileged session monitoring, combined under the Fudo Security brand. The Fudo product line merges innovation and an intuitive user experience with strong security features. These are the hallmarks of the future designs of the company.

Fudo Security

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

KFC, BP, Santander, Burger King, ING, Starbucks, Yahoo, DHL

Buyer's Guide

CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM

December 2025

Free Report: CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM

Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager vs. Fudo PAM report.

See our list of best Privileged Access Management (PAM) vendors.

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.