Evidence comparison
CyberArk and HashiCorp Vault: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on privileged access management shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 48 items on CyberArk and 70 on HashiCorp Vault, each one linked to the source it came from. It does not name a winner, and the section below explains why the numbers cannot be subtracted from one another.
Read the counts correctly
More advisories does not mean less secure. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed. A product deployed in thousands of organisations with a mature disclosure process accumulates far more entries than a product nobody audits. A low count can mean a small install base, a young product or a vendor that publishes little, and a high count often marks the opposite.
The two counts are not measured with equal precision. An advisory is only listed against a vendor when the register ties it to one of its products by name, and vendors differ enormously in how consistently their products are named. Here that gap is 33 unattributable entries for CyberArk against 28 for HashiCorp Vault, which moves the advisory row far more than the products do. Both numbers are in the table so the difference is visible rather than hidden.
Treat this page as two records shown together, never as one score minus another.
The two records side by side
| Measure | CyberArk | HashiCorp Vault |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 48 | 70 |
| Kinds of source | 4 | 4 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 2 | 26 |
| Register entries that could not be attributedEntries naming the vendor that could not be tied to one of its products, so they are excluded from the row above. Read the two rows together: where this number is high, the registers describe that vendor's products less consistently, and the advisory count above says more about naming than about the product. | 33 | 28 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 0 | 0 |
| Share from government registers | 77% | 77% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 100% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 4 | 7 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 27, 2026 | Jul 06, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 27, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Where each record comes from
The registers and platforms behind each column, with the body that operates each one. A record resting on government registers carries different weight from one resting on the vendor's own documentation, which is why this is shown per vendor rather than merged.
CyberArk
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 35 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 2 | Nov 27, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 7 | Jul 27, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 4 | Aug 07, 2025 |
HashiCorp Vault
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 28 | Jul 06, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 26 | Jul 02, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 13 | Jun 21, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 3 | Jul 03, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Only entries tied to a product of the named vendor by a structural signal are listed: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, the vendor as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. Entries that merely mention a vendor in passing are excluded from both columns.
CyberArk
- CVE-2025-13762mediumCVSS 4.8Nov 27, 2025
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in CyberArk CyberArk Secure Web Sessions Extension on Chrome, Edge allows Denial of Service when trying to starting new SWS sessions.This issue…
- CVE-2025-49831criticalCVSS 9.8Jul 15, 2025
An attacker of Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted installations that route traffic from Secrets Manager to AWS through a misconfigured network device can reroute authentication requests to a…
HashiCorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2026-2167lowCVSS 4.4Jul 02, 2026
Affected products: Hashicorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2026-1164highCVSS 8.1Apr 17, 2026
Affected products: Hashicorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2025-2396highCVSS 8.1Nov 25, 2025
Affected products: Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Hashicorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2025-1925mediumCVSS 7.5Oct 24, 2025
Affected products: Hashicorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2025-1730mediumCVSS 5.9Aug 08, 2025
Affected products: Hashicorp Vault
- WID-SEC-2025-1734mediumCVSS 5.3Aug 07, 2025
Affected products: Hashicorp Vault
What practitioners report
Public threads naming each product in their own title. Not curated for sentiment, and not counted as a verdict: a loud thread is one team's experience, not a measurement.
CyberArk
- Hacker NewsAug 07, 2025Independent
Researchers Uncover RCE Attack Chains in HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur
- Hacker NewsJul 30, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks agrees to buy CyberArk for $25B
- Hacker NewsJul 30, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks Announces Agreement to Acquire CyberArk
- Hacker NewsJul 29, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks closing on over $20B acquisition of CyberArk
HashiCorp Vault
- Hacker NewsMar 17, 2026Independent
Enterprise for OpenBAO – Open Source HashiCorp Vault alternative
- Hacker NewsFeb 01, 2026Independent
HashiCorp Vault is overhyped, and Mozilla SOPS with KMS and Git is underrated (2019)
- Hacker NewsNov 20, 2025Independent
HashiCorp Vault is overhyped, and Mozilla SOPS with KMS and Git is underrated
- Hacker NewsAug 07, 2025Independent
Zero-day flaws in authentication, identity, authorization in HashiCorp Vault
- Hacker NewsAug 07, 2025Independent
Researchers Uncover RCE Attack Chains in HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur
What neither record can tell you
The two lists below are the honest holes in each record. Everything a choice between these two actually turns on sits outside both of them.
CyberArk
- A further 33 register entries mention CyberArk without naming a product of CyberArk as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
HashiCorp Vault
- A further 28 register entries mention HashiCorp Vault without naming a product of HashiCorp Vault as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether CyberArk is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- SSO / SAML / OIDC Integrationweight
- Privileged Access Managementweight
- Identity Governance & Access Certificationweight
- SCIM Provisioning / Lifecycle Managementweight
- Zero-Trust Architecture Supportweight
Criteria shown as examples for privileged access management. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Which is better, CyberArk or HashiCorp Vault?
This page does not answer that, and no public page can. Better exists only relative to a decision: which criteria matter, how heavily each weighs, what counts as a dealbreaker and which systems the product has to live next to. What this page gives you is the evidence on both, 48 items on CyberArk and 70 on HashiCorp Vault, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does CyberArk or HashiCorp Vault have more vulnerabilities?
HashiCorp Vault currently has 26 attributed advisories in this record and CyberArk has 2. That comparison is easy to misread. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed, so a widely deployed product with an active disclosure process accumulates more entries than one nobody audits. A low count can equally mean a small install base or a vendor that publishes little. The two figures are also not measured with equal precision: an advisory only counts here when a register ties it to a named product, and 33 entries naming CyberArk and 28 naming HashiCorp Vault could not be tied to one. The count worth reading closely is how many entries appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities, which is 0 for CyberArk and 0 for HashiCorp Vault.
How independent is the evidence on CyberArk and HashiCorp Vault?
100 percent of the CyberArk record and 100 percent of the HashiCorp Vault record come from sources the vendor does not control: government vulnerability registers, public practitioner threads and a fixed list of recognised analysts and technology press. Material either vendor publishes about itself stays in the record and is labelled as a claim.
What does this comparison of CyberArk and HashiCorp Vault leave out?
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods, support commitments and the current scope of any certificate. None of those appear in a public register; they come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record. Fit with your existing stack and your compliance scope is also absent, because it is a property of your organisation rather than of a privileged access management product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking CyberArk and HashiCorp Vault?
Because a ranking would have to invent the buyer. Every quadrant and score sheet silently assumes a weighting that belongs to someone else's decision. nexalign publishes the record and keeps the weighting where it belongs, in DecisionOS, where it is set by the people who have to defend the outcome.
The full records
CyberArk: the full evidence record
48 items from 4 kinds of source
HashiCorp Vault: the full evidence record
70 items from 4 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between CyberArk and HashiCorp Vault depends on which criteria matter to you, how heavily each one weighs, what your hard constraints are and who has to sign the result off. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool, scores it against the criteria of your actual decision and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.