Akeyless vs CyberArk Conjur vs HashiCorp Vault: Secrets Management Compared
Retool's new app builder is where AI-generated code ships safely
Building apps with AI is easy. Getting them to production safely is another story.
Secrets sprawl is one of the most reliably exploited attack surfaces in modern infrastructure. Hard-coded credentials in repositories, long-lived static tokens passed through CI pipelines, and API keys baked into container images all represent the same underlying failure: secrets that should never have left a vault ended up somewhere they could be harvested.
Three platforms dominate the conversation when security and DevOps teams decide to solve this properly: Akeyless, CyberArk Conjur, and HashiCorp Vault. Each solves the same core problem but from a fundamentally different starting position. Getting the choice wrong means either months of operational overhead running a platform your team did not have capacity for, or paying enterprise licensing fees for capabilities you could have gotten from open-source tools.
What Each Platform Actually Does
Akeyless is a cloud-native SaaS secrets management platform built around a zero-knowledge Distributed Fragments Cryptography model. Your secrets are split into fragments across multiple cloud providers so that no single party can reconstruct them. You never manage storage backends, raft clusters, or unsealing ceremonies. Akeyless handles secrets rotation, dynamic secrets, SSH certificate issuance, and certificate management through a single SaaS control plane.
CyberArk Conjur is a policy-driven secrets management engine designed to be the machine identity layer of the CyberArk PAM platform. It stores secrets in an encrypted database and enforces access through a declarative policy file that defines roles, resources, and permissions. Conjur is available as Conjur OSS (open-source, self-hosted) and as CyberArk Conjur Cloud (managed SaaS, sold as part of enterprise agreements).
HashiCorp Vault is an open-source secrets engine that your team self-hosts or runs via HashiCorp Cloud Platform (HCP Vault). It supports KV secrets, dynamic secrets for databases and cloud providers, PKI certificate management, encryption as a service, and a plugin architecture that has made it the most extended platform in the space. Vault OSS is free; HCP Vault Secrets starts at roughly $0.03 to $0.10 per secret per month.
Architecture Breakdown
The architectural differences are not superficial. They determine operational burden, blast radius on failure, and how much your security team needs to know about distributed systems.
Akeyless architecture is fully managed SaaS. You deploy lightweight Gateways inside your own network that broker secret access without the secret ever leaving your perimeter in cleartext. The Gateway handles caching and failover locally, so even if Akeyless cloud is unreachable, your applications continue reading secrets from the Gateway cache. This model eliminates the need to manage Raft consensus, storage backends, or unsealing procedures.
Conjur architecture follows a server-client model. A Conjur server hosts the policy and secret store, and Conjur authenticators handle identity verification for workloads via Kubernetes service accounts, IAM roles, JWT tokens, or LDAP. The policy file is the central control artifact: version-controlled, human-readable, and defining every permission in the system.
Vault architecture gives you the most options and the most responsibility. You choose the storage backend (integrated Raft, Consul, cloud storage), the seal mechanism (Shamir key shares, cloud KMS auto-unseal), the replication topology, and the authentication methods. Vault operations is a real discipline with its own on-call considerations.
Briefings like this, every morning before 9am.
Threat intel, active CVEs, and campaign alerts, distilled for practitioners. 50,000+ subscribers. No noise.
Also compare in secrets management
Pricing Reality Check
Pricing comparisons in this space require accounting for total cost, not just license fees.
Akeyless charges roughly $0.05 to $0.10 per secret per month on SaaS tiers, with no infrastructure costs. For a team running 500 secrets, that is $25 to $50 per month in licensing with zero infrastructure overhead.
Conjur OSS is free under Apache 2.0. CyberArk Conjur Cloud is enterprise-licensed at approximately $15 to $40 per authenticating workload per month based on typical deal structures. Organizations already licensing CyberArk Privilege Cloud typically receive Conjur at a bundled discount.
Vault OSS is free. HCP Vault is licensed per cluster at approximately $0.24 to $0.35 per cluster per hour, which translates to roughly $2,100 to $3,060 per cluster per month. For teams with strong platform engineering capacity, Vault OSS is often the lowest total cost option. For teams without that capacity, the hidden cost is real.
Integration Depth by Ecosystem
Vault wins the Terraform and infrastructure-as-code ecosystem. The Terraform Vault provider is mature, the Vault Secrets Operator for Kubernetes is actively maintained, and Vault is the default secrets backend referenced in most cloud infrastructure tutorials. If your team lives in HCL and Terraform modules, Vault slots in with minimal friction.
Conjur wins the CyberArk PAM ecosystem. If you are running CyberArk Privileged Access Manager for human users and want machine secrets to share the same policy engine, audit log, and identity model, Conjur is the only platform that provides that without building a bridge.
Akeyless wins multi-cloud and SaaS-first teams. Its Universal Identity supports AWS IAM, Azure AD, GCP service accounts, Kubernetes service accounts, GitHub Actions OIDC, and more without requiring per-cloud configuration that differs by provider. Teams running workloads across two or three cloud providers often find Akeyless's unified identity layer simpler to maintain than Vault's per-provider auth backends.
Use Case Fit Guide
Choose Akeyless if your team wants zero infrastructure management, operates across multiple clouds or SaaS platforms, and the engineering cost of running a Vault cluster would exceed Akeyless SaaS pricing. Also a strong fit for companies without a dedicated platform engineering team.
Choose CyberArk Conjur if you are already in the CyberArk ecosystem, your security team writes CyberArk policy files, and your compliance requirements benefit from a unified PAM and secrets management audit trail. The licensing conversation is easier when it is an add-on to an existing enterprise agreement.
Choose HashiCorp Vault if your team has platform engineering capacity to run it well, your infrastructure is heavily Terraform-driven, you need the deepest possible dynamic secrets support across database engines and cloud providers, or you require capabilities like Vault Transit (encryption as a service) that have no direct equivalent in the other platforms.
Migration Considerations
Moving between platforms is non-trivial but well-trodden. The hardest part is not migrating secrets themselves but re-wiring application authentication. Every application that currently calls Vault's AppRole or token endpoint needs updated auth logic to call the new platform.
Akeyless maintains a Vault compatibility API path that allows some tooling to be re-pointed with environment variable changes rather than code changes. Conjur has no Vault compatibility layer, so migration from Vault to Conjur requires deliberate re-integration work per application.
Plan any migration in three phases: parallel operation with secrets synced to both platforms, application-by-application cutover with rollback paths defined, and decommissioning of the source platform only after 30 days of clean operation on the destination.
The bottom line
Start with the infrastructure question. If your team cannot absorb Vault cluster operations, eliminate Vault OSS from consideration and evaluate HCP Vault or Akeyless on SaaS cost alone. If you are already paying for CyberArk, price out whether Conjur Cloud is available under your contract before evaluating alternatives. Then examine integration depth: list your five highest-priority integration targets and map each to the integration documentation for each platform. The platform with the shallowest integration path across your specific targets is usually the right answer regardless of feature marketing. Run a two-week proof of concept with a representative application before committing.
Frequently asked questions
What is the core architectural difference between Akeyless, Conjur, and Vault?
Akeyless is a cloud-native SaaS platform that stores secrets in a distributed, zero-knowledge architecture across cloud providers so you never operate storage infrastructure yourself. CyberArk Conjur is a policy-driven secrets manager designed to integrate tightly with the broader CyberArk PAM ecosystem, available as open-source or as a managed cloud service. HashiCorp Vault is a self-managed open-source engine (or HCP Vault for a hosted tier) where your team owns installation, clustering, storage backends, and upgrades. The choice maps closely to how much infrastructure ownership your team wants.
How do the pricing models compare across the three platforms?
Akeyless charges roughly $0.05 to $0.10 per secret per month on its SaaS tiers, with no infrastructure costs to absorb. Conjur OSS is free, while CyberArk Conjur Cloud is enterprise-licensed and typically bundled with a broader CyberArk contract. HashiCorp Vault OSS is free to run; HCP Vault Secrets costs approximately $0.03 to $0.10 per secret per month depending on tier. For small teams, Vault OSS or Conjur OSS minimizes spend. For large enterprises already on CyberArk, Conjur is often included in existing agreements. For teams wanting zero-ops SaaS, Akeyless total cost of ownership can be lower once you factor in engineering time to run Vault clusters.
Which platform integrates best with Kubernetes?
All three support Kubernetes, but the depth varies. HashiCorp Vault has the most mature Kubernetes integration story: the Vault Agent Injector and the Vault Secrets Operator both handle secret injection at pod level with minimal application changes. Akeyless offers a Kubernetes Secrets Operator and supports the CSI Secrets Store driver. Conjur also supports the Secrets Provider for Kubernetes and the Conjur Open Source Operator, though the configuration is more CyberArk-centric. Teams running GitOps workflows on Kubernetes tend to reach for Vault first, unless they are already deep in the CyberArk stack.
When does CyberArk Conjur win over the other two?
Conjur is the clear choice when your organization is already running CyberArk PAM for privileged account management and needs secrets management that shares policy, audit logs, and identity with that existing deployment. It also wins for regulated industries where CyberArk's compliance certifications and audit capabilities are a procurement requirement. If you are not already invested in the CyberArk ecosystem, Conjur's licensing and deployment complexity rarely justify starting from scratch.
What migration path exists if you want to move from Vault to Akeyless?
Akeyless provides a Vault migration guide and a REST API that mirrors Vault's KV v2 path structure, which means some tooling can be re-pointed with minimal code changes. The Akeyless Universal Secrets Connector can also sync secrets from an existing Vault instance during a transition period, letting you run both in parallel before cutover. The main migration effort is updating application authentication methods: Vault AppRole or token-based auth must be replaced with Akeyless access IDs backed by IAM roles, JWT/OIDC, or Kubernetes service accounts. Plan for two to four weeks of integration work per application cluster depending on the number of secret consumers.
Is HashiCorp Vault still a strong choice after the BSL license change?
HashiCorp moved Vault to the Business Source License (BSL) in August 2023, which restricts using Vault to build a competing managed service but does not affect internal enterprise use. For most practitioners running Vault inside their own infrastructure, the license change has no practical impact. HCP Vault remains under standard SaaS terms. If your legal team has concerns about BSL for internal deployments, review the specific BSL text with counsel, but the vast majority of enterprise use cases remain unaffected.
Sources & references
Free resources
Critical CVE Reference Card 2025–2026
25 actively exploited vulnerabilities with CVSS scores, exploit status, and patch availability. Print it, pin it, share it with your SOC team.
Ransomware Incident Response Playbook
Step-by-step 24-hour IR checklist covering detection, containment, eradication, and recovery. Built for SOC teams, IR leads, and CISOs.
Get threat intel before your inbox does.
50,000+ security professionals read Decryption Digest for early warnings on zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state campaigns. Free, daily, no spam.
Unsubscribe anytime. We never sell your data.
Founder & Cybersecurity Evangelist, Decryption Digest
Cybersecurity professional with expertise in threat intelligence, vulnerability research, and enterprise security. Covers zero-days, ransomware, and nation-state operations for 50,000+ security professionals every morning.
Win a $2,495 Black Hat pass.
Full-access to Black Hat USA 2026 in Las Vegas. Subscribe free to enter.