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) (8th), Privileged Access Management (PAM) (5th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (6th)
 

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.
Tor Nordhagen - PeerSpot reviewer
Transparent mode for privileged sessions will greatly simplify our client's administrative situation
We're introducing the solution's transparent mode for privileged sessions. This is part of what the client hasn't used before. It will simplify their administrative situation greatly. So far, the rollout of this feature has been a seamless process, but we're still in the midst of rolling it out. The benefits will be on the risk side. Right now, the way accounts are managed, you don't necessarily know who is using an account. There's a shared admin account, and that's not a good thing. And those accounts are shared in wallets by several people. One of the real benefits of safeguarding here is that the client will have an absolute audit of who is using an administrative interface, whether it's server or network.

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."
"Safeguard has the ability to record and retrieve in the full-video format."
"There is ease of implementation."
"The technical support is tremendous."
"It is easy to manage. There is a very logical, clear user interface. Also, the integration of scripts is thoughtfully implemented. Overall, it's a nice product to manage."
"The solution transparently integrates into the infrastructure and users do not notice it. I would give this feature the highest rating."
"The transparent mode for privileged sessions is a very good solution."
"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."
"The auditing and approval mechanisms are features we did not have before and are greatly appreciated."
 

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."
"I find it complicated to implement HTTPS monitoring because the documentation is unclear."
"I just received a question from a customer in regards to a connection with Oracle OID. I tried to integrate Safeguard with the Oracle YAML as well as something else to manage the groups and users from a different system, like AD or LDAP. This one feature could be better. At this moment, the platform system can only use the integration with LDAP or AD. The software for research and development to create a connector to a YAML platform can be very complicated."
"Some of the out-of-the-box reporting isn't that rich. We spoke to our Safeguard reps who have acknowledged that some of the reporting features can certainly be improved and that we're not the only customer who has cited this. There are very little out-of-the-box reporting capabilities. You have to build the queries and the report. I believe in the next release they're going to be addressing this."
"We would like to be able to generate certificate signing requests (CSRs) from the interface for certificates."
"The automated change of the passwords, which is now integrated, could be improved to be more flexible regarding different systems."
"Transparent mode was too cumbersome, so I don't foresee us being able to use it. On paper when we were initially talking about it, it was definitely going to be the preferred method until we realized the burden it would be on our network guys. Then, we had to step back and reevaluate what we wanted to do. That's when we changed our approach to use the RD Gateway feature."
"The high availability function of the box requires a long time to switch over from one appliance to another."
"For some users, the physical appliance has been a bit buggy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"As compared to other products, it is reasonable, but the training sessions are too expensive."
"They offer a fair price for a robust solution."
"Safeguard is cheaper than CyberArk."
"The full license is expensive but if you plan to use it in a big organization then it is the best option because it is more flexible."
"Setup cost, pricing and licensing are all very expensive."
"It was definitely cheaper than the other two products that we evaluated."
"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."
"We have a yearly license. The cost depends on how much a company wants to invest in technology. In our organization, we believe in modern digitization and automation processes so we found it affordable. One Identity was not that much less than other solutions and it is not a cheap solution. There were number of cheaper solutions. However, it's the most effective, according to our evaluation."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Privileged Access Management (PAM) solutions are best for your needs.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
22%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise19
 

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, WALLIX and others in Privileged Access Management (PAM). Updated: September 2025.
868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.