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

Hitachi ID Privileged Access Manager [EOL] vs One Identity Safeguard comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Hitachi ID Privileged Acces...
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
One Identity Safeguard
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) (6th), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (3rd), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (4th)
 

Featured Reviews

DR
Responsive support, requires little maintenance, but configuration could be easier
Hitachi ID Privileged Access Manager is cumbersome and it does not operate by itself and relies on other solutions. Overall the way you configure things is a bit awkward compared to other solutions, such as Cyberark and Thycotic. The interface could be more intuitive, some features I expected to be easily accessible I had to search around for them. There needs to be more centralization.
Martin Ajayiobe - PeerSpot reviewer
Th password vault feature has proven to be most effective for managing privileged access
One Identity Safeguard now prevents unauthorized access to servers by eliminating privileged passwords and requiring all connections to go through a PAM-authorized process. This means no one, including hackers, can access servers without explicit approval, significantly enhancing overall security. One Identity Safeguard is easy to use with a good partner to support you, and it can be up and running within a few days. We have successfully integrated One Identity Safeguard with cloud targets, and the process was straightforward. One Identity Safeguard has improved our incident response time by 300 percent.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"If you using IGA or access controls solutions then this solution is a good addon. Once Hitachi ID Privileged Access Manager is set up it does not require a lot of maintenance or attention."
"There are numerous valuable data protection features, including the content and information that offer us more scalable protection as needed."
"The monitoring system is very good."
"We use the solution’s “transparent mode” feature for privileged sessions. It is very easy because it is only a simple configuration for our users. We don't have to modify our network. We install it, configure it, and it works. So, it is super easy. The rollout for our users is seamless."
"The solution's most valuable features are the efficiency and the quality of the recording."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The customer service and technical support are very good."
"The Transparent Mode is the number one advantage of the product."
"We use the solution’s Approval Anywhere feature which enables us to add an extra layer of security for critical passwords without adding time-consuming approval processes. By using this platform, if someone goes on a vacation, out of office, or needs urgent/planned leave, then our setup will select the functions tied to that person and automatically delegate them to the next person. That person can start performing that duty based on their access. No sharing of passwords is required."
 

Cons

"Hitachi ID Privileged Access Manager is cumbersome and it does not operate by itself and relies on other solutions. Overall the way you configure things is a bit awkward compared to other solutions, such as Cyberark and Thycotic. The interface could be more intuitive, some features I expected to be easily accessible I had to search around for them. There needs to be more centralization."
"Support for One Identity Safeguard could be improved because sometimes the support team doesn't have an answer or solution for some bugs. A feature I found in a competitor would make One Identity Safeguard better, and that is the ability to load balance the traffic in the target."
"We are still in the onboarding phase, and it seems very manual. Ideally, a single interface to integrate all these processes would be useful."
"The main point regarding the user experience is that Safeguard has two separate management consoles."
"There is room for improvement in the launch module. They built in a launch button but they don't have effective instructions for configuring it to allow it to launch an RDP session. They're working on that, but the button is in the live product. If they were going to install something that wasn't useful, they should have just disabled it and not rolled it out with the product."
"It needs more marketing."
"We have feature requests and would like to see the turnaround times on those features to be faster."
"We would like to have the option of importing assets by using the CSV file. It was available in the earlier versions, but it is not available now."
"We would like to be able to generate certificate signing requests (CSRs) from the interface for certificates."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The license is around $3,000 per month."
"Its subscription cost is too much, and sometimes, it is very difficult to pitch the solution to the management for cost approval. If the cost is reduced a little bit, it would be easier. If its cost was less, many other organizations that currently cannot afford it would be able to use this technology. I'm sure many organizations around the globe are having issues with identity management, and it is a very difficult task for IT to manage privileged accounts."
"We bought their other products, so it was not that expensive. It is one of those where the more you buy, the cheaper it is."
"They have comparable pricing. All identity products are essentially priced in a similar way. It's a per-user base."
"One Identity Safeguard is expensive and the cost goes up as we scale."
"It was definitely cheaper than the other two products that we evaluated."
"It is a bit on the pricey side, but you get what you pay for. You don't want to get anything too cheap because then you get cheap stuff and cheap support. That really never helps anybody."
"The license is very expensive for us, partly due to inflation and partly because of the exchange rate between the Dollar and the Iranian Rial. We purchased a perpetual license that we've been using up until now, but I believe that we are not going to update it in the future. Instead, we plan to find another third-party to support us with the license, in the sense that we would have access to their license as a shared agreement."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about One Identity Safeguard?
The identity discovery is good, and the performance is pretty good value.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for One Identity Safeguard?
The pricing of One Identity Safeguard is fairly priced and cheaper than other solutions of the same enterprise level. It provides a good cost-benefit ratio.
What needs improvement with One Identity Safeguard?
There is room for improvement in integration between modules. The native integration between SPP and SPS, which is currently based on a plugin, could be enhanced. Customization for lookup passwords...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Cavium
Find out what your peers are saying about CyberArk, Delinea, One Identity and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM). Updated: June 2025.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.