Delinea Secret Server Reviews

Delinea Secret Server is good for multi-platform support and hybrid cloud environment, it supports a mix of Linux and Windows programs.

The secret template, password rotation, and recording sessions are the most valuable.

They could improve the container platform and SPO. The cloud database technologies should be improved. The web browser isolation recording could be improved. When you do anything from the web portal, it cannot record properly. You can only record via remote desktop or secure share. But when the admin performs by web access we cannot record the session.

I have been using Delinea Secret Server for the past five years.

I have found that it is reliable. 

It is easy to scale and they support modular.

They are pretty good when it comes to basic support.  If you have questions or concerns beyond the basic support you have a fee-based professional service that takes over.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I used an in-house implementation.

The licensing costs around seventy thousand dollars annually.

I would rate Delinea Secret Server an eight out of ten.

One valuable feature is that it will support a dedicated database. Delinea provides multiple features, like reporting and remote password changes.

The UI needs improvement because the interface is a little clumsy.

I've been using it for almost two years.

It's stable.

It is scalable and is better than other solutions. We have 400 users in our company.

We can't say that technical support is good because they respond according to their time zone, and we are not in the same time zone. I would give them a six out of ten.

Neutral

The deployment was not difficult and took one and a half months.

We have an enterprise license as well as a user license and a support license.

I can recommend this solution and will rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

I use Delinea Secret Server for demonstration purposes while talking to clients, for internet access management, and user monitoring.

I like that it's user-friendly.

Support could be better. I have heard about a lot of problems in the Bangladesh market. People are saying that there are support issues. So, Delinea should focus on support and services.

I have been using Delinea Secret Server for one or two months.

Delinea Secret Server is a stable solution.

Delinea Secret Server is a scalable solution.

Technical support could be better. The support centers can't solve the issues.

On a scale from one to five, I will give technical support a two.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward. For demonstration purposes, it does not take much time. But it takes up to four months to go into production.

I would tell potential users that they should focus on local partners with a local support team. This is becasue Delinea can't resolve the issues these days. I have seen a lot of cases in Bangladesh where the OEM can't resolve the issues. The application server is full of logs, and sometimes it needs to clear all the logs and files because it can become slow. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Delinea Secret Server a six.

The primary use case is managing access for user groups and individuals in a very large environment.  

One of the best things about Thycotic is that it is very easy-to-use. It is logical, it has well-designed screens and a nice GUI interface. It has good performance and is generally a pleasure to operate.  

If you look at Thycotic, it is a great product that has pretty much all the same features as CyberArk — which will be replacing it. There is not much difference between the two. We will be switching away from using Thycotic, however, before the end of the year.  

The catalyst for the change was a formal comparison of the two products that we did using each to evaluate how we would use it in solving actual use case issues. In the presentation of the scoring over specific categories, CyberArk had slightly better professional service marks and the same price. Besides that, the two products were neck-and-neck and almost identical in the scoring. CyberArk just came out just a little bit better than Thycotic in the details, and not by much at all. Be that as it may, the formal comparison is the reason for the change.  

Thycotic has been in use in our Healthcare system for four years.  

Thycotic is a rock-solid product. Our organization never had any issues with it.  

If you consider the shere physical size of the Healthcare environment, you can tell from that just how scalable the product is. Not every product can handle 55,000 network elements and 15,000 servers.  

The technical support for Thycotic is very good as might be expected. The members of the support team that I have been in contact with are very much on the ball. Thycotic has  excellent service staff.  

This will be the last year Thycotic will be in operation at Healthcare in Norway because it will be replaced by CyberArk at some time this year.  

I think there are some very small things in Thycotic which are a little harder to do, and that is only because the Healthcare environment is so large. Healthcare has 55,000 network elements and 15,000 servers. One of the few things that CyberArk does better than Thycotic is to more neatly group IT assets in smaller bundles using a 'safe' that could be assigned to groups or teams for access. By comparison, Thycotic — at least in the versions leading up to the competition — lists all the assets at one time, no matter how many there are. When there are lists which are 15,000 elements long, it is harder to locate items and divvy up the work. So it was some slight usability things like this that really made the difference in the outcome of our comparison.  

While this organizational feature in Thycotic was not so good, some other parts of the user interface that are included in it are really fabulous. Thycotic is more intuitive and it is more logical in many ways than CyberArk. So I really like the Thycotic product. But for this very large environment, it turned just to be slightly less applicable to our situation than its competition.  

As I probably indicate from my answer, if it was not for the fact that we did a formal comparison and scoring of the products — following the objective measures that we have to follow when we buy things in the public — we probably would have done well just keeping Thycotic. But when you follow the Government process and the idea is to be absolutely impartial, then the way the scoring is set up is the way it goes.  

I think the pricing of Thycotic and CyberArk products are very similar.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Thycotic as probably a nine. That is only because I have to rank them slightly lower after we decided to make the switch to CyberArk, and replacing a product that is a ten would not make a lot of sense. So a nine-out-of-ten it is.  

Thycotic is a product that is so friendly that it can be used by nearly anyone and everyone, and that is a good place to be. As for the limitations in a very large environment, Thycotic could invest in making changes in the product to handle structuring in a segmented way. It would be costly for Thycotic to make that investment, but for Healthcare as a user group, that would have been the difference. We have already bought another product, so we are not going to change our minds again, but it may be worth considering for the team at Thycotic.  

I would probably recommend Thycotic for most businesses because it is simpler and easier to deal with than CyberArk. So really, I would recommend it to all businesses except for the extremely large ones.  

One of our clients primarily uses it for automation capabilities. 

The zero-trust PIN is a great feature of the solution.

Technical support is pretty good. 

The ability to automate is a good selling feature.

The initial setup and deployment can be cumbersome. It's not an easy process. 

I've been dealing with the solution for about a year.

Technical support is okay. I've dealt with bad tech support services on other solutions, however, in the case of this product, nothing jumps out at me as being a negative experience. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide to us. 

I also have experience with CyberArk.

The difference between the two is basically that CyberArk gives you a bit more value for money.

I have found the initial setup to be difficult. It's not exactly simple or straightforward. It's a downside to the solution. 

I can't speak to how much the solution costs a month. I don't deal with the licensing side of things. 

I'm a reseller. 

We tend to deal with the most up-to-date versions of the solution.

When making a decision, it often comes down to Thycotic and CyberArk. What we found is that CyberArk, for the features and the cost, gives you a little bit more value and saves you money in the process. Between CyberArk and Thycotic, Thycotic is somewhat easier to deploy and get up and running. Essentially, with Thycotic, you get the value quicker. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are a Thycotic partner. We use Thycotic extensively, and we also do a lot of implementations for them. Generally, it is for privilege access management and session recording capabilities. 

A few clients have used it as a proxy capability, and the functionality there is that the privileged accounts have access from their workstations to the servers. In order to get access, they have to be basically proxied through Thycotic for an SSH or RDP connection, and then you have a control capability for auditing and session recording.

We have used pretty much every version since 2018, including the latest version. We have deployed it to AWS and on-prem.

I like that it is Windows-based. It is good that primarily, it is not an appliance. Some of the other applications in the space, such as a Quest Software CPAM or a Safeguard, are appliances, so you can't deploy the ends of them. With Thycotic, you can either install your Temporal Protection module physically in the VM host, or you can use BouncyCastle for high-security module capabilities.

One thing that I wish they would do is to have a Kubernetes or container-based deployment supported, but they're not quite there yet. Containerization or support for containerization would be fantastic.

I have been using this solution since 2018.

There is nothing major. There were minor things that were really edge cases. We've had an issue in 2019 where if you went through the web interface to change your password, the agent that actually did the password change on the backend would go and make the change to the main controller or the active directory domain controller. After that, without waiting long enough for the change to finish committing, meaning waiting for zero nanoseconds, it would go and check to see if the change had been accomplished. So, they introduced a slight delay of two to three milliseconds, and that fixed the problem. It was really straightforward, but it took a little while to demonstrate what the actual problem was.

With our latest versions, the scalability is very good. They have a scale-out and scale-up capability depending on what your needs are and how distributed you want the capabilities to be. I don't know any other products on the market that are better at scaling.

We have deployed it to small organizations with 10,000 users. Our largest organization has 10 million users.

I would rate them a nine out of 10. You get forwarded around a bit, but you actually get somebody who can really help and solve the problem for you.

It is very straightforward. We generally do an automated deployment by using a script-based capability that we've created. It works out really well. 

It is a kind of self-serving advice, but I would advise getting a partner to deploy it for you. There are a lot of really good partners out there, not just us.

In terms of the maturity of their product, there are a lot of Enterprise capabilities that they haven't yet brought into the market, but after it has been called out to them that there is a customer who needs a capability, they're very quick and responsive around doing development to get that capability in, which is something I like. There was an Enterprise scalability capability where you have high availability and multi-site failover. One of the versions that they had back in the 2018 and 2019 timeframe did not support that capability. We called out some recommendations to them, and they had it in the product in the next major revision.

I would rate Thycotic Secret Server a 10 out of 10 because I am not familiar with any products that are capable of going on-prem and have a superior function set.

We use the solution to store all of our secrets. For example, passwords, usernames, and other credentials. These credentials can be from many places, such as service accounts, bank accounts, and key pairs. It also has the functionality if, for example, a contractor requests to log into a specific server, they would use the Secret Server to log in to the server session that is monitored and he or she would be logging in without the actual real credentials. It is also on a rotating password system.

I have found most valuable the automatic scheduled password rotation and remote desktop monitoring. Additionally, the documentation is readily available and easy to find and the dashboard is straightforward.

I would like to see scheduled reports in a future release.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

I have found the solution to be very stable.

You can set up two different servers and the process is straightforward. The solution is scalable and we have 70 users using it in my organization.

We might increase usage in the future but it all depends because currently all of the operations teams have been provided for. If the operations team grows, there would be room for more usage.

The technical support needs improvement. For example, if you have any problems on the server configuring the IIS, they would provide you very limited details and they would tell you the problem is on your end. They are limited to only supporting their application, even if you have the slightest problem assessing their application through IIS they will refer you to contact Microsoft.

Additionally, the sales team could be more friendly and helpful.

I would rate the technical support of Thycotic Secret Server a seven out of ten.

The installation was straightforward.

There is an annual license fee per user and the price is fair.

I rate Thycotic Secret Server an eight out of ten.

The most common use case will be just for keeping personal passwords. There are other things that we use if for, but that is the most common use case.  

The ability to manage personal passwords is what it was built for and that is what makes it most valuable.  

The main part of the product that could be improved is the API (Application Programming Interface). The Thycotic API is not very good.  

I have been using Thycotic Secret Server for a couple of years. It could be as many as four.  

I guess this should be considered a stable solution. There has been no downtime this year.  

There are about 1200 users that are using this product at our organization. We are going to continue to use it at least for a while, but we are looking for some alternative solutions because it is not that good and there are better products available that can do what we need better. It seems to be able to scale with our user base.  

I do not have any experience with technical support because I am not the person managing the product. We do have an internal IT crew that takes care of the application and they would be the ones who would be in contact with technical support if it were necessary.  

When I came to this company, Secret Server was already in place. I do not know if the company may have had something in place before this. There is a consensus at the corporate level that we will continue using Thycotic Secret Server.  

I do not think it is particularly straightforward if you do anything more than install it and turn it on. I do not have any feedback on the process of the installation itself because I did not install this product. as a DevOps, I find that modification is not straightforward.  

I believe it was implemented in house by the team. We have maybe two people on staff who take care of this application.  

I think that Secret Server is expensive when I compare the cost to some alternatives. There are different plans and additional licensing costs that can be added on, but I do not know the details exactly within our company.  

I would not recommend this product. I would not because the basic functionality is okay, but we need some API access to use KPI (Key Performance Indicator) properly. We also need to automate some stuff using this secure vault. Attempting to do that is almost impossible because of the low quality of the API.  

Me, speaking as a lead DevOps, I would not recommend it for this office. It is not the best choice for what we need.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate this product differently depending on what level or type of user is using the product. For the DevOps purposes, my rating would be zero. Each year it is less competitive and it can not be justified for the price.  

In general, for end-users, I do not know. They are not exposed to the development end so I think they might give it a five-out-of-ten.