For improvement, I would suggest enhancing the reporting functionality of CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla, as it could benefit from more customization or advanced filtering for auditing purposes. I have heard from colleagues that for some advanced policies, they are still approaching an Accenture vendor, likely due to existing difficulties. The user interface could also be enhanced.
The challenges I face with the implementation of CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla involve legacy applications and legacy systems, which sometimes present issues. Additionally, custom-built APIs that are not properly structured can be problematic, though CyberArk can help redefine them according to the customer's demands. Integrating CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla with banking applications such as T24 is very tough to accomplish. When working with the T24 core banking application, the T24 support team is not able to assist much, so I have to find a way to fix the issue myself. The difficulty is not related to the price but rather to the technical integration challenges with these specialized banking systems.
Associate Director at a legal firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
Jan 11, 2026
The first downside is that the central admin console can be improved. Additionally, there is a need for more access to customization. CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla is lacking in the governance side of identities compared to competitors. More risk management governance policies and features would be beneficial.
There is still no automated way to de-provision access due to a review completion, but they are getting there in terms of making it unified. Right now it is just a one-way integration, importing user lists. I believe they working on it. I can pull a user list in, but when I do a review, the results get sent to a ticket which requires a person to execute. As a result of the review, there is no automation for the removal of access. They are going there, and the next step is to continue to streamline the process operationally and resource-wise. The review process is great. The scope for improvement is more at the results end. It would be great if it could systematically communicate with that end system and remove the requested access automatically.
CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla is designed to streamline identity governance and administration by automating access controls and compliance processes, enhancing security and efficiency.
Known for its robust capabilities, CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla offers comprehensive identity governance that simplifies policy enforcement and compliance management. It enables organizations to efficiently manage user access, reducing risks and ensuring secure operations. By leveraging automation, it...
For improvement, I would suggest enhancing the reporting functionality of CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla, as it could benefit from more customization or advanced filtering for auditing purposes. I have heard from colleagues that for some advanced policies, they are still approaching an Accenture vendor, likely due to existing difficulties. The user interface could also be enhanced.
The challenges I face with the implementation of CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla involve legacy applications and legacy systems, which sometimes present issues. Additionally, custom-built APIs that are not properly structured can be problematic, though CyberArk can help redefine them according to the customer's demands. Integrating CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla with banking applications such as T24 is very tough to accomplish. When working with the T24 core banking application, the T24 support team is not able to assist much, so I have to find a way to fix the issue myself. The difficulty is not related to the price but rather to the technical integration challenges with these specialized banking systems.
The first downside is that the central admin console can be improved. Additionally, there is a need for more access to customization. CyberArk IGA Powered by Zilla is lacking in the governance side of identities compared to competitors. More risk management governance policies and features would be beneficial.
There is still no automated way to de-provision access due to a review completion, but they are getting there in terms of making it unified. Right now it is just a one-way integration, importing user lists. I believe they working on it. I can pull a user list in, but when I do a review, the results get sent to a ticket which requires a person to execute. As a result of the review, there is no automation for the removal of access. They are going there, and the next step is to continue to streamline the process operationally and resource-wise. The review process is great. The scope for improvement is more at the results end. It would be great if it could systematically communicate with that end system and remove the requested access automatically.