CyberArkUnified IAM, PAM, and IGA identity security platform.
vs
FusionAuthDownloadable, API-first customer identity and auth you can deploy anywhere.
Comparison · Identity & Access Management · weekly run Nov 3
CyberArk vs FusionAuth
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
CyberArk is the stronger AI pick in Identity & Access Management: it has a visibility score of 15.6 versus 1 for FusionAuth.
Choose CyberArk if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (15.6 vs 1)
- You need SOC 2 or SOC 3 or ISO/IEC 27001:2022 or ISO/IEC 27017:2015 or ISO/IEC 27018:2019 or ISO 9001:2015 or ISO/IEC 42001:2023 or ISO 22301 or CSA STAR or Cyber Essentials or Cyber Essentials Plus or FedRAMP High or Common Criteria or PCI DSS v4.0.1 or HIPAA or IRAP or CCPA coverage
- You prefer a larger, established vendor (1,001–5,000 employees)
- Market leader in privileged access management (PAM)
Choose FusionAuth if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (100% vs 49% positive)
- You need a self-hosted or on-premises option
- You need SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 or HIPAA BAA available coverage
- Clear public pricing tiers
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | CyberArk | FusionAuth |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 15.6% | 1% |
| Change vs last week | up+2.1% | up+1% |
| Rank in Identity & Access Management | #7 | #29 |
| Share of voice | 6.1% | 0.4% |
| Mentions this run | 19 | 1 |
| Positive in AI answers | 49% | 100% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
CyberArk +0.5pp · FusionAuth +0.6pp over 1 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
CyberArk leads on 3 of 3 engines
ChatGPT
AI Mode
Perplexity
CyberArkFusionAuth
Head to head in AI answers
0 engine answers name both brands
0CyberArk ranked higher
0FusionAuth ranked higher
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | CyberArk | FusionAuth |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | — | Usage-based |
| Entry price | — | Free; paid from $162 / mo |
| Free plan | — | Yes |
| Deployment | Self-hosted and SaaS | Self-hosted, on-premises, hybrid, air-gapped, or FusionAuth Cloud (dedicated hosting) |
| Compliance | SOC 2, SOC 3, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017:2015, ISO/IEC 27018:2019, ISO 9001:2015, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO 22301, CSA STAR, Cyber Essentials, Cyber Essentials Plus, FedRAMP High, Common Criteria, PCI DSS v4.0.1, HIPAA, IRAP, GDPR, CCPA | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA BAA available, GDPR |
| Support | Support contact, Knowledge base, Technical community | Community forums and GitHub, Email support, 24/7 email and phone support, Private Slack channel |
| Founded | 1999 | 2009 |
| Headquarters | Newton, MA, United States | Broomfield, CO, United States |
| Employees | 1,001–5,000 | 51–200 |
| Funding | Post-IPO debt | Growth (led by Updata Partners) · $65M raised |
| Best for | Enterprises that need to secure privileged access for human and machine identities. | Developer and engineering teams that need customer authentication they can self-host or run on dedicated infrastructure. |
Plans side by side
CyberArk
Pricing not available.
FusionAuth
Community$0self-hosted
Starter$162month, starting at, billed annually (1,000 MAUs)
Essentials$2,970month, starting at, billed annually (1,000 MAUs)
Enterprise$2,970month, starting at, billed annually (1,000 MAUs)
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
CyberArk
- Market leader in privileged access management (PAM)
- Strong identity security and credential risk mitigation
- Security-first approach with strong behavioral analytics
- Bridges standard access management with robust PAM and machine identity security
- Strong for enterprises combining workforce identity with PAM
FusionAuth
- Clear public pricing tiers
- Fully featured open-source self-hosted option
- No forced enterprise sales
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 98.8%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “CyberArk vs FusionAuth”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/cyberark-vs-fusionauth, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.