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

CyberArk Identity vs Safe-T Secure Application Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 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

CyberArk Identity
Ranking in Access Management
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (9th), Identity Management (IM) (10th), Authorization Software (3rd), Enterprise Password Managers (8th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (9th), Active Directory Management (8th), Cloud Resource Access Management (2nd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (8th)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in Access Management
27th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (44th), ZTNA (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of CyberArk Identity is 3.4%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

Julio Montero - PeerSpot reviewer
Access management system provides strong security and effortless user authentication
The solution can be deployed on cloud or on-premises. CyberArk is more on the cloud than on local hardware. The deployment is initially quite difficult. That said, when you are doing the implementation of CyberArk, there are so many tutorials that make the learning process very easy. The only complaint could be the language barrier. It's difficult if you don't have a very good level of English. Otherwise, it is very easy. You can have it set up within three months without much difficulty. It's hard to get started, however, once you get going, it gets easier. A full deployment takes half a year or less. There is some maintenance necessary. A company is constantly hiring and letting go of employees. The access is always changing, so access must always be adjusted. Or, if we need another law of filter, we would need to add those, or even take them away. That's another aspect of maintenance.
it_user787671 - PeerSpot reviewer
Needs to be easier to configure and to display logs more simply
We use only it for scanning files for viruses. That's the only feature we use in this product It needs to be easier to configure, it should be something that's working well with other sources. It should be something that allows me to see the logs simply. One to three years. Sometimes it doesn't…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The feature that we find most valuable is the ability to integrate multiple IDs for on-premises Active Directory."
"The features that I personally find most effective in terms of security stem from the fact that it is easy to integrate and also the adoption is faster."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Identity was straightforward."
"The integration capabilities, ability to integrate CyberArk into the overall IBB strategy of our current clients."
"If anyone makes an error, or if an incident occurs by accident, the business will not be harmed as a result of this activity."
"The tool helps with authentication. It acts as an MFA for any kind of privileged access that occurs in our organization."
"CyberArk Identity's ability to safeguard financial services infrastructure is good."
"CyberArk Identity is at the top."
"the security level is very high. After we tested it and checked all the security aspects of the product, we found that it's highly secure."
"If you want a very flexible system that you can easily integrate, and develop interfaces for it or plug-ins to other application environments, it's probably the most flexible"
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
 

Cons

"CyberArk Identity's GUI is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement."
"I'm not sure what needs improvement. It is a good platform."
"In terms of a governance platform, it's worth noting that CyberArk doesn't offer a particularly strong one."
"The product is not cheap, especially if you opt for an on-premise deployment requiring a complex server infrastructure. On the other hand, choosing the software as a service version simplifies infrastructure requirements but necessitates being online all the time."
"CyberArk Identity could improve by having the ability to better manage the network, such as Cisco. There seem to be some issues in this area."
"When you translate the page from one language to another, it can be a difficult process. The translation isn't always good, and it may have a completely different name. I've noticed this in the English to Spanish translation."
"The solution could be easier to use and I found it to be very complex involving many steps."
"At the moment CyberArk needs to enrich Conjur and it needs to be made more viable so that its adoption can be made much faster."
"One important thing that we haven't found in this product is the ability to provide a read-only view for documents. Also, the ability for the customer to add annotations to these documents."
"The Outlook agent is not working well for installing it in the entire office."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is acceptable. It is worth considering what we are protecting with the amount charged."
"In terms of pricing, BeyondTrust and CyberArk tend to be more expensive, with CyberArk receiving an eight out of ten, in this regard."
"CyberArk Identity is an expensive solution."
"There could be some additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution when you want to develop connectors in CyberArk Identity."
"It's not that affordable compared to Delinea or other products. They're less expensive and allow more customization. For the cost, it is expensive."
"The pricing of CyberArk Identity is competitive."
"I would rate the tool’s pricing a seven out of ten. The product’s pricing is expensive and is on a yearly basis. You will need to pay around 10,000 GBP for 500 users."
"We find that the pricing and licensing of this solution is adequate, as compared to the other competitors in the market."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CyberArk Identity?
The integration capabilities, ability to integrate CyberArk into the overall IBB strategy of our current clients.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CyberArk Identity?
The pricing is acceptable. It is worth considering what we are protecting with the amount charged.
What needs improvement with CyberArk Identity?
Some areas experience slowness based on the workload. There's a need to enhance network performance despite the good user experience with access management.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Idaptive
Safe-T SDA, Safe-T, Safe-T Software-Defined Access
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

MLB, Citi, Pfizer, SulAmerica, GE Capital, Shiseido
Government of Israel, eviCore Healthcore, Glen Imaging, Sarin, LBG, Rollomatic, Boegli-Gravures SA, Banque Heritage, Groupe Minoteries, Temenos, ZEK, RLM Finsbury, Harel Insurance, Meitav Dash
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk Identity vs. Safe-T Secure Application Access and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.