A team deciding between CyberArk and BeyondTrust should start by identifying which privileged-access risk it needs to reduce first. For many organizations, the choice comes down to deep credential and session control or stronger endpoint privilege and remote access. Each path can support security across cloud, hybrid, and on-premises environments, but the work may sit in different products.
Just-in-time (JIT) access means temporary privileged permission granted only when needed for an approved task. Choosing the right platform can shape how your team protects administrators, vendors, applications, and infrastructure. This comparison helps you match needs to product capabilities and quote terms, so you can plan for the way your organization actually works.
There is no benefit in buying features your team cannot own or use. The best fit depends on your security priorities, operating model, and purchasing needs. A useful shortlist begins with the systems, users, and tasks the organization must secure.
Key Takeaways
- CyberArk is a strong fit for deep credential control and session oversight.
- BeyondTrust stands out when endpoint privilege and remote access lead.
- Check which named modules cover each account, system, and task.
- Compare quotes using the same scope and capacity.
- Test real workflows before making a final choice.
What Do CyberArk and BeyondTrust Actually Manage?
CyberArk and BeyondTrust both manage privileged access, but their portfolios divide the work across different product combinations. The right comparison starts with the named modules, not just the vendor names. CyberArk’s standard PAM offering combines several tools, while BeyondTrust splits key tasks across Password Safe, PRA, and endpoint products.
Both vendors compete with Delinea, whose Secret Server is available on-premises and as Secret Server Cloud. BeyondTrust competes with CyberArk and Delinea; CyberArk competes with BeyondTrust and Delinea. The product match depends on which privileged accounts, credentials, and systems need protection.
CyberArk’s core PAM and endpoint tools
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the company’s core PAM product. Its standard offering includes Enterprise Password Vault, Privileged Session Manager, Privileged Vault Web Access, and Central Policy Manager. Together, these products cover credential storage and control, session access, and policy tasks.
CyberArk Endpoint Privilege Manager is a separate tool for endpoint privilege management. It aims to reduce attack surfaces and apply least privilege, so users do not keep broad administrator rights by default. Application and machine secrets may need a separate product, CyberArk Conjur.
A standard CyberArk PAM offering includes the four named modules, but a buyer should still map each needed task to its module. Product names alone do not show how many tools a deployment requires.
BeyondTrust’s vault, remote access, and endpoint products
BeyondTrust Password Safe manages credentials, keys, and secrets, with real-time session-management features. Privileged Remote Access (PRA) provides secure remote access, privileged-session management, and user authentication. BeyondTrust Endpoint Privilege Management handles privilege elevation and delegation, application-use controls, and ransomware defense.
Map every required capability to a named module before estimating the number of products your deployment needs.
Start your inventory with administrator accounts, vendor access, application and machine secrets, and endpoint admin rights. Include cloud systems and operational technology, which can have different access needs from standard office devices. Map each required capability to a named module before deciding how many products the deployment needs.
CyberArk vs BeyondTrust: Which Session Controls Differ?
For an auditor who must replay and control a live privileged session, the connector and monitoring configuration matter as much as the product name. CyberArk and BeyondTrust both offer session controls, but coverage depends on the selected product and deployment. CyberArk recording requires a deployed Privileged Session Manager connector.
In CyberArk Privilege Cloud, text or video recording is available when a Privileged Session Manager (PSM) connector is deployed. An environment with only a Secure Infrastructure Access (SIA) connector does not provide that monitoring. The distinction can affect which activity appears in an audit trail.
| Control area | CyberArk | BeyondTrust | Buyer implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recording condition | Text or video with a PSM connector | Records across Password Safe, PRA, and Remote Support | Confirm which exact sessions are captured |
| Live-session controls | Monitoring supports playback, monitor, suspend, resume, and terminate | Session logging and recording are documented for Password Safe, PRA, and Remote Support | Match controls to the audit workflow |
| Suspicious-session response | Monitoring can suspend, resume, or terminate a session | Password Safe sessions can be locked or terminated | Check the response options in each module |
CyberArk Monitoring supports playback and live-session monitoring, so an authorized reviewer can follow activity as it happens. Suspension, resumption, and termination give the team options during a response. These are useful controls when an investigation needs more than a saved recording.
BeyondTrust documents session logging and recording across Password Safe, PRA, and Remote Support. Password Safe sessions can also be locked or terminated. Buyers should confirm which BeyondTrust module records the sessions their audit team needs, because each product has its own role.
CyberArk is the stronger fit when the required workflow specifically depends on PSM-based recording and live control. The best fit may change if the deployment uses SIA-only connectors or another monitoring path. Confirm that the selected deployment captures the exact sessions the audit team needs to review.
How Does BeyondTrust Handle Remote Access?
A vendor who needs access to a cloud console or operational technology system can connect through PRA without a VPN. BeyondTrust Privileged Remote Access brokers connections to IT systems, cloud applications, and operational technology. VPN-free access can support third-party work without giving a vendor broad network access. PRA combines connection controls with session monitoring, recording, and just-in-time access.
The product supports granular access controls and just-in-time permissions. It also offers multiple connection types and authentication options, which lets teams fit access to the system and user. A VPN protects traffic between a device and a VPN server, but it does not secure every account or device; see this VPN comparison and security overview for that distinction.
- RDP for remote desktop connections.
- VNC for virtual network computing access.
- HTTPS for web-based services.
- SSH for secure shell connections.
- SQL for database connections.
PRA supports multi-factor authentication (MFA), passwordless authentication, and SAML authentication. Credentials can stay in the PRA appliance vault or connect through BeyondTrust Password Safe. Your choice affects where credentials live and how users reach them.
The product’s PRA documentation describes secure remote access for administrators, IT staff, and third-party vendors, with session monitoring and recording. Version 25.3 added automated import rules for discovered domain, local, Password Safe, and AWS accounts.
Version 25.3 also supports direct Password Safe discovery and imports for SSH, WebJump, SQL, and Kubernetes without an ECM dependency. It supports Password Safe credential injection in SQL, PostgreSQL, and MySQL protocol-tunnel sessions. Test the least common connection type in the environment, not just the one used by most administrators.
What Is a CyberArk Safe, and How Do Members Use It?
A CyberArk Safe is a logical container in the Vault that groups accounts and secrets under defined access rules. It is not a physical device; it sets a boundary for organizing and controlling access. Membership and member permissions are separate controls.
The Vault uses Safes to organize accounts and secrets and to control which users or workloads can access them. A Safe can also limit the actions they can perform. That access boundary helps teams group related credentials without giving every user the same rights.
Safes organize accounts and secrets
A Safe works like a password vault folder with access rules, rather than a physical storage box. Teams can place accounts and secrets together based on the work or system they support. A user or workload must have access to the relevant Safe before reaching those items.
The Safe establishes where the protected items sit and which users or workloads can reach them. That does not mean every member can make every change. A CyberArk Safe container helps keep account and secret access tied to a defined group.
Safe membership sets specific permissions
Safe members can receive different permissions for the accounts and files inside. Examples include permission to:
- View accounts.
- Modify account properties.
- Perform tasks on accounts or files in a Safe.
Membership alone does not grant every member every action. Permissions determine the allowed work, so two members of one Safe may have different abilities. This distinction matters when someone needs to change an account or use a stored secret.
For example, a member who can view an account may not be able to edit its properties. Another member may have permission to perform tasks on accounts or files. Review both Safe membership and each member’s assigned permissions when an account or workload needs a change.
How Do HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur Compare?
A DevOps team generating short-lived secrets has a different requirement from a team assigning applications policy-based access to existing secrets. HashiCorp Vault supports dynamic secret generation and encryption through its Transit secrets engine. Conjur centers on policy for application-to-application and machine-to-machine secrets. The right choice follows the workload’s secrets process, not the vendors’ full PAM portfolios.
HashiCorp vs CyberArk is not a like-for-like comparison of each company’s full privileged access management platform. HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur address secrets workflows, while each vendor also offers other products. Teams should compare how secrets are created, accessed, and governed.
| Capability | HashiCorp Vault | CyberArk Conjur | Practical distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic secrets and Transit encryption | Dynamic generation, Transit encryption, plugin architecture | Policy-based secrets management | Vault includes dynamic generation and encryption as a service |
| Application-to-application policies | Supports secrets management workflows | Controls application and machine access to secrets | Conjur focuses on workload access rules |
| Policy formats | Plugin-based integrations | YAML or Conjur policy language | Match the format to team skills and policy needs |
| Editions or enterprise features | Community and Enterprise Editions | Integrates with CyberArk’s broader PAM ecosystem | Vault Enterprise adds replication, standbys, and multi-datacenter features |
HashiCorp Vault’s Transit secrets engine provides encryption as a service, and its plugin architecture supports integrations. Vault Enterprise adds advanced replication, performance standbys, multi-datacenter capabilities, and Sentinel policy as code. The HashiCorp Vault capabilities are relevant when teams need those features within a secrets-management workflow.
CyberArk Conjur manages application-to-application and machine-to-machine secrets through policy-based access controls. Its policies can use YAML or Conjur policy language to specify which applications may access which secrets. Conjur also connects with CyberArk’s wider PAM ecosystem for human and non-human privileged credentials.
Choose based on whether the workload needs dynamic secret generation, policy-controlled access, or both. Teams should consider which policy language fits their workflow and how the secrets tool will connect to existing systems. Match the tool to the workload’s secret lifecycle and policy language before treating either as a full PAM substitute.
What Should Buyers Expect From PAM Pricing?
The clearest public comparison point is a CyberArk Privilege Cloud Standard pack listed at $44,712 for 25 users over 12 months. The listing was checked October 7, 2026. Scope matters because the price applies to a defined pack, not every deployment. Compare the included modules and capacity, not just the headline total.
BeyondTrust product-only pages do not publish public dollar prices. Its capacity measures also differ by product, so a user count for one module cannot stand in for an asset count elsewhere. A fair quote comparison must align both the scope and the unit being priced.
| Vendor or module | Public figure | Capacity basis | Scope to confirm |
|---|---|---|---|
| CyberArk Privilege Cloud Standard pack | $44,712 for 25 users, 12 months | 25 users | Connectors and other user types |
| BeyondTrust product-only public pricing | No product-only public dollar price | Varies by product | Quoted modules and capacity |
| BeyondTrust module capacity and separate quotes | Modules quoted independently | Concurrent technicians or managed assets | Each module’s unit and included scope |
The CyberArk pack does not automatically include session connectors or other user types unless the offer specifies them. Ask whether the quoted scope includes the connector setup and user types needed for your deployment. That distinction can change how closely a listed pack matches your planned use.
BeyondTrust Remote Support capacity is described in concurrent technicians. Password Safe, Privileged Remote Access, and Endpoint Privilege Management capacity is described in managed assets. When you buy more than one BeyondTrust module, the modules are quoted independently.
Ask for the same number of users or assets across each quote, then compare the same module set. A quote should name its capacity basis and included scope so the totals can be read fairly. Compare quotes on the same user or asset count and the same set of included modules.
Which Organization Fits Each Platform Best?
A large security team consolidating privileged credentials and audit workflows is more likely to favor CyberArk, while a team focused on remote vendors and local admin rights is more likely to favor BeyondTrust. The leading risk should guide the choice. Choose CyberArk for depth of credential and session control; choose BeyondTrust for endpoint privilege and remote access needs.
Both platforms can suit enterprise organizations, but the work your team must run changes the fit. A mature PAM program may value centralized credential controls and audit oversight. A leaner team may need endpoint and vendor workflows that match daily operations.
CyberArk for deep credential and session-control programs
CyberArk is more likely to fit an organization with a mature PAM program and a central need for enterprise-scale privileged credential control. It suits teams that want to bring privileged accounts under consistent policy and give auditors a stronger view of sessions. The value rises when those controls are a core security priority.
CyberArk can also make sense when teams already have clear ownership for credential policy and session oversight. A platform with deep controls still needs people to configure and maintain them. Without that ownership, a long feature list can become shelfware.
BeyondTrust for endpoint and remote-access priorities
BeyondTrust is a stronger fit when endpoint privilege enforcement is the urgent need. It can suit teams trying to reduce excess local admin rights or control the way applications receive elevated access. That focus may matter more than centralized credential depth for some organizations.
BeyondTrust can also fit teams that need controlled vendor connections or remote support. Those workflows often involve outside users who should reach a specific system without broad access. The key is to align the platform with the access tasks that happen most often and carry the most risk.
A broad feature checklist is not enough if your organization cannot staff configuration and policy ownership. Teams should account for the time needed to keep controls current and support users. Choose the product that addresses the highest-risk workflow the team can realistically operate and maintain.
What Did the Palo Alto Networks Acquisition Change?
CyberArk remains a named security platform, but since February 11, 2026, it has operated as a subsidiary of Palo Alto Networks. The acquisition changed its corporate ownership, while the product name remains in use. CyberArk Identity Security solutions remain available as a standalone platform while integration continues.
CyberArk was founded in Israel and is headquartered in Petah Tikva. Its U.S. headquarters are in Newton, Massachusetts. That history and its current ownership are separate facts, which can matter when buyers review a vendor’s company profile and contract details.
- 1999: Udi Mokady and Alon N. Cohen founded CyberArk in Israel.
- 2024: CyberArk reported US$1.00 billion in revenue and 3,793 employees.
- February 11, 2026: Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of CyberArk.
The acquisition closed on February 11, 2026, and CyberArk became a subsidiary of Palo Alto Networks. Its Identity Security solutions remain available as a standalone platform during integration into Palo Alto Networks’ security ecosystem. Current availability does not mean every product or contract has already changed names.
For buyers, the practical question is what appears in the specific quote and order. Corporate ownership does not by itself show whether a product name, support path, or packaging has changed. Check the named product and its contract terms alongside the security scope you plan to buy.
CyberArk’s founding and headquarters make it an Israeli company by origin, with a U.S. headquarters in Massachusetts. Company details can help with procurement reviews, but they do not replace contract checks. Confirm the product name, support path, and integration scope on the specific order before purchase.
What Should You Verify Before Signing a PAM Contract?
Before signing, run the proposed modules against the same privileged workflows the team will operate in production. A proof of concept should test real users, systems, and exceptions, not just a smooth demonstration. Real conditions matter because configuration gaps often appear at workflow boundaries. Do not approve a demo that tests only a clean administrator workflow.
Test CyberArk Privileged Session Manager and BeyondTrust Privileged Remote Access against the organization’s actual privileged workflows. Include a vendor, application, or exception case, not only a standard administrator login. Those less common paths can expose gaps in access control or session evidence.
Use three acceptance checks before the proof of concept begins:
- Verify that the selected user and asset scope covers the intended accounts.
- Test representative session and remote-access workflows with real systems.
- Confirm authenticator and evidence needs with the security or compliance owner.
The third check should cover how users prove their identity and what evidence an audit needs. NIST SP 800-63-4 treats phishing-resistant, cryptographically bound authenticators as the baseline for high-assurance environments. A generic authentication checklist may miss that standard.
Ask the security or compliance owner to define what counts as a successful test. That might include the right user reaching the right system, a session record being available, and the team responding as expected. Keep pass criteria tied to the organization’s actual access rules.
Organizations evaluating other enterprise security tools can also benefit from workflow-based platform testing that checks configuration, connector coverage, and ownership. For this PAM proof of concept, record the pass criteria and required evidence before the test begins.
Do not sign off on a polished administrator demo if it leaves vendor, application, or exception workflows untested.
Record the pass criteria and required evidence before the proof of concept begins.
Conclusion
The right choice is the platform that closes the organization’s most important privileged-access gap without creating a program it cannot run. CyberArk is the better fit when deep credential and session control lead. BeyondTrust is the better fit when endpoint privilege and remote or vendor access matter most.
Request quotes for the exact modules and capacity your organization needs, then test them in a workflow-based proof of concept. Ask each vendor to demonstrate the highest-risk workflow and price the same scope your team plans to deploy.
FAQ
What is CyberArk safe?
A CyberArk Safe is a logical container in the Vault for accounts and secrets. It is not a physical storage device. A Safe groups items under defined access rules, while member permissions decide which actions each user or workload can perform. One member may view an account, while another can modify its properties or perform tasks on accounts and files.
Is Secret Server a PAM?
Yes, Delinea Secret Server is a privileged access management product for managing privileged credentials and access. It is available on-premises and as Secret Server Cloud. Organizations may compare it with CyberArk and BeyondTrust when they need to control privileged accounts, but they should match specific product capabilities and deployment needs.
What are the key differences between CyberArk and BeyondTrust?
CyberArk centers on deep credential and session control, while BeyondTrust brings together credential vaulting, remote access, and endpoint privilege tools. CyberArk may suit a mature program focused on centralized privileged accounts and audit oversight. BeyondTrust may fit teams that need local admin controls or secure access for vendors. The best choice depends on the highest-risk workflow.
Is CyberArk still called CyberArk?
Yes, CyberArk remains a named security platform after becoming a Palo Alto Networks subsidiary on February 11, 2026. Its Identity Security solutions remain available as a standalone platform while integration into Palo Alto Networks’ security ecosystem proceeds. Product names and contract details may depend on the specific offer, so review the exact order terms.
Is CyberArk an Israeli company?
CyberArk was founded in Israel in 1999 and is headquartered in Petah Tikva. Its U.S. headquarters are in Newton, Massachusetts. Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition on February 11, 2026, and CyberArk became its subsidiary. Its Israeli origins and headquarters remain part of the company’s history, despite the change in ownership.
