Evidence-Backed Side-by-Side Comparison
SentinelOne Singularity Platform vs. CyberArk Privilege Cloud
Comparing documented technical capabilities, SLA commitments, and verified pricing models without synthetic scores.
Cross-Category Comparison: The selected solutions are categorized under different security specializations (Endpoint protection and EDR,Extended detection and response vs Identity and access management,Privileged access management). Ensure you evaluate capability specifications within your targeted architecture.
Comparing 2 solutions side-by-side
| Evaluation Criteria | SE SentinelOne SentinelOne Singularity Platform | CY CyberArk CyberArk Privilege Cloud |
|---|---|---|
| Classification & Vendor | ||
Offering Type | Software Product | Software Product |
Vendor Headquarters | Mountain View, CA | Newton, MA / Petah Tikva, Israel |
Corporate Identity Status | Unverified Profile | Unverified Profile |
Primary Security Specialization | Endpoint protection and EDR | Identity and access management |
| Architecture & Deployment | ||
Deployment Models | Multi-tenant or dedicated Cloud SaaS management console with autonomous single-agent sensor | Cloud SaaS platform with lightweight on-premises Secure Web Access connectors |
Supported Platforms / OS | Windows 11/10/8.1/7, Windows Server 2022-2008 R2, macOS 14-11, Linux (all major distributions), VDI | Windows Server, Linux, Unix, Enterprise Databases (Oracle, MS SQL, PostgreSQL), Cloud Consoles |
| Pricing & Commercial Model | ||
Pricing Transparency Status | Publicly Documented | Contact Sales / Custom Quote |
Entry List Pricing | $159.00 (per-endpoint-per-year) | Custom quote required / Not publicly listed |
Commercial Licensing Scope | Available in Singularity Core, Control, and Complete tiers starting from $159/endpoint/year. | Enterprise subscription based on number of privileged users and managed targets. |
| Platform & Architecture | ||
Supported Operating Systems Operating systems supported by the endpoint sensor agent. | Windows, macOS, Linux, Kubernetes, VDI | Not documented in our sources |
Agent Architecture Kernel or user-space architecture of the endpoint agent. | Autonomous on-sensor AI agent | Not documented in our sources |
Management Console Deployment Console delivery options (Cloud SaaS, GovCloud, On-premises). | Cloud SaaS, Hybrid, Air-gapped on-prem | Not documented in our sources |
| Authentication & Access | ||
Supported MFA Methods & FIDO2/Passkeys Range of authentication factors supported including phishing-resistant FIDO2/WebAuthn. | Not documented in our sources | CyberArk Identity MFA, FIDO2, Duo, Okta, RADIUS |
Continuous Adaptive Trust & Risk Signals Dynamic step-up authentication based on device health, IP reputation, and behavioral anomalies. | Not documented in our sources | Supported |
| Identity Lifecycle | ||
Directory & HRIS Integrations Native synchronization with Active Directory, Entra ID, Workday, and SCIM endpoints. | Not documented in our sources | Active Directory, Microsoft Entra ID, LDAP, SCIM |
| Detection & Prevention | ||
Autonomous Offline Protection Ability to detect and mitigate threats when disconnected from the cloud. | Supported | Not documented in our sources |
Ransomware Remediation & Rollback Native capability to revert encrypted or tampered files to pre-attack state. | Supported | Not documented in our sources |
| Privilege Governance | ||
Privileged Session Recording & Auditing Keystroke and video recording of privileged administrative sessions (SSH, RDP). | Not documented in our sources | Supported |
| Evaluation & Benchmarks | ||
MITRE ATT&CK Evaluation Published Public evaluation results participated in official MITRE ATT&CK enterprise evaluations. | Supported | Not documented in our sources |
Data Provenance Notice: “Not documented in our sources” indicates the absence of publicly verifiable vendor technical documentation. SecurifyA never synthesizes unverified capabilities or assumes capabilities without documentation.
Comparison FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions: Cybersecurity Comparisons
Learn how SecurifyA verifies capability claims, sources comparison data, and structures objective evaluation criteria.
|
Our comparison matrix aligns solutions across standardized technical dimensions: agent architectures (kernel vs. eBPF vs. agentless), telemetry retention, automated containment mechanisms, operating system compatibility, and verified pricing models. We present documented facts rather than subjective star ratings.
Have an architecture or vendor question not answered here?Our analysts review vendor source documentation and publish updates continuously.