CyberArk vs Ping Identity
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Ping Identity is the stronger AI pick in Identity & Access Management: it has a visibility score of 22.5 versus 15.6 for CyberArk, and ranks ahead in 78% of the answers that name both.
Choose CyberArk if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (49% vs 36% positive)
- You need 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 GDPR or CCPA coverage
- Market leader in privileged access management (PAM)
- Strong identity security and credential risk mitigation
Choose Ping Identity if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (22.5 vs 15.6)
- You need a self-hosted or on-premises option
- You need ISO 27001 coverage
- Enterprise-grade identity security for large enterprises
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | CyberArk | Ping Identity |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 15.6% | 22.5% |
| Change vs last week | up+2.1% | down−2.2% |
| Rank in Identity & Access Management | #7 | #4 |
| Share of voice | 6.1% | 7.5% |
| Mentions this run | 19 | 23 |
| Positive in AI answers | 49% | 36% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
CyberArk +0.5pp · Ping Identity −4.699999999999999pp over 1 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Ping Identity leads on 3 of 3 engines
Head to head in AI answers
27 engine answers name both brands
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | CyberArk | Ping Identity |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Self-hosted and SaaS | Multi-tenant cloud, dedicated-tenant cloud, self-managed on-premises, hybrid, and FedRAMP-authorized environments |
| Integrations | — | 350+ |
| 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, ISO 27001 |
| Support | Support contact, Knowledge base, Technical community | — |
| Founded | 1999 | 2002 |
| Headquarters | Newton, MA, United States | Denver, CO, United States |
| Employees | 1,001–5,000 | 1,001–5,000 |
| Funding | Post-IPO debt | Acquisition by Thoma Bravo (take-private) |
| Best for | Enterprises that need to secure privileged access for human and machine identities. | Large enterprises and government bodies managing customer, workforce, partner and AI agent identities at scale |
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
Ping Identity
- Enterprise-grade identity security for large enterprises
- Strong for complex hybrid and federated environments
- Advanced federation, SSO, and directory services
- Strong customer identity (CIAM) and fraud prevention
- Highly rated by analysts and users
- Enterprise deployments can stretch budgets
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 98.8%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “CyberArk vs Ping Identity”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/cyberark-vs-ping-identity, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.