Secrets · Head-to-head
CyberArk Conjur vs HashiCorp Vault — secrets management comparison
CyberArk Conjur extends CyberArk PAM into secrets; HashiCorp Vault is DevOps-native.
Verdict
CyberArk Conjur extends the CyberArk PAM model into machine secrets — strong for organizations already on CyberArk wanting unified audit and operations. HashiCorp Vault is DevOps-native — broader dynamic credentials, deeper PKI, stronger cloud-native ecosystem integration. For CyberArk-aligned organizations, Conjur. For DevOps / SRE-led infrastructure, Vault.
When CyberArk Conjur wins
- Already running CyberArk PAM
- Unified audit + operations across PAM + secrets
- Enterprise compliance posture
- Less DevOps-native infrastructure
When HashiCorp Vault wins
- DevOps / SRE-led infrastructure
- Dynamic database / cloud credentials
- Deep PKI / certificate management
- Cloud-native ecosystem integration
Capability matrix
| Capability | CyberArk Conjur | HashiCorp Vault | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unified audit with PAM | ✓ | ~ | |
| Dynamic database credentials | ~ | ✓ | |
| PKI / certificate depth | ~ | ✓ | |
| Cloud-native ecosystem | ~ | ✓ | |
| Enterprise compliance | ✓ | ✓ |
Pricing posture
CyberArk Conjur enterprise. Vault Enterprise per-cluster.
Frequently asked
- Can Conjur replace Vault?
- For organizations already on CyberArk yes for many scenarios. Vault's dynamic credentials + PKI depth remain advantages.
- Migration scope?
- Secrets migrations 6-18 months. Rotation-on-migration is standard practice.
- Open source?
- Conjur has an open-source edition. Vault has community edition + Enterprise tier.
Vendor profiles