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
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (9th), Identity Management (IM) (9th), Authorization Software (3rd), Enterprise Password Managers (9th), User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (9th), Active Directory Management (6th), Cloud Resource Access Management (3rd), Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) (7th)
Safe-T Secure Application A...
Ranking in Access Management
31st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Enterprise Infrastructure VPN (43rd), ZTNA (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Access Management category, the mindshare of CyberArk Identity is 3.5%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Safe-T Secure Application Access is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Access Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CyberArk Identity3.5%
Safe-T Secure Application Access0.9%
Other95.6%
Access Management
 

Featured Reviews

Hariharan Thangasamy - PeerSpot reviewer
Cybersecurity Delivery Analyst at Accenture
Has strengthened privileged access control and improved audit visibility through session monitoring and password rotation
On the identity product side, it is awesome. However, they can improve in the documentation parts. For example, if there is a migration process, I can see the maximum customers are moving from self-hosted to on-premises or from on-premises to the cloud. It would be helpful if they released a generalized document for processes such as migration. A clear overview document would assist us in understanding more about the tool, configurations, and automations to enhance our security. Regarding the initial setup of CyberArk Identity, I faced some challenges. At some points, I could not find proper documentation for deploying, enhancing, or integrating with other components. I could not find the proper documentation in the community portal.
it_user787671 - PeerSpot reviewer
Network and Security Engineer
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

"CyberArk Identity is a mature product."
"The most valuable features of CyberArk Identity are its ability to control access to administrative staff."
"The initial setup of CyberArk Identity was straightforward."
"CyberArk Identity is at the top."
"The user identification is simplified, and managing user privileges, whether adding or revoking them, is also quite straightforward when utilizing CyberArk SaaS."
"The most valuable feature of CyberArk Identity is the adaptive interface."
"As soon as it is implemented, it fundamentally changes how users access systems, providing immediate security benefits."
"CyberArk Identity's ability to safeguard financial services infrastructure is good."
"Safe-T is very good for users because it has plug-in for Outlook."
"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"
"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."
"It's easy to use over the web. A user who is not in the office can use it and securely insert files."
 

Cons

"I faced some challenges during the initial setup of CyberArk Identity. At some points, I could not find proper documentation for deploying, enhancing, or integrating with other components."
"Integration or deployment is extremely difficult for CyberArk Identity."
"They can include the Mobile Device Management (MDM) feature."
"One area for improvement is the complexity of the learning curve for new users."
"The user interface could be improved."
"To enhance the product, they can consider improving the user interface of the software and possibly the customer support team."
"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."
"They could improve their UI and make everything more user-friendly."
"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 solution is cheap and I rate its pricing an eight out of ten."
"The pricing is acceptable. It is worth considering what we are protecting with the amount charged."
"We find that the pricing and licensing of this solution is adequate, as compared to the other competitors in the market."
"There could be some additional costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution when you want to develop connectors in CyberArk Identity."
"In terms of pricing, BeyondTrust and CyberArk tend to be more expensive, with CyberArk receiving an eight out of ten, in this regard."
"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."
"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."
"There is an initial license and then there is a subscription needed."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Access Management solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise10
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?
I am not certain about CyberArk Identity's exact pricing model. For comparison, Okta was around five dollars per user. CyberArk Identity offers good discounts to some clients, which influences thei...
What needs improvement with CyberArk Identity?
We do not specifically use the password vaulting feature of CyberArk Identity. The centralized user dashboard of CyberArk Identity has not been that important for us. If it would be possible to sha...
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: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.