StrongDM vs OnePAM: Browser-Based Access, Session Recording, and Pricing

Two Architectures, One Problem

Both StrongDM and OnePAM solve the same fundamental problem: how do you give engineers, contractors, and support teams access to databases, servers, and clusters without distributing static credentials, opening VPN tunnels, or losing visibility into what happens during sessions?

They solve it differently. StrongDM routes traffic through a local client application that proxies connections to a gateway in your network. OnePAM renders sessions directly in the browser, with the session broker handling protocol translation server-side. Neither approach is inherently superior—the right choice depends on your team’s access patterns, user population, and operational constraints.

Architecture Comparison

Access Model Deep Dive

StrongDM: Client-Based Proxy

StrongDM’s architecture installs a desktop application that creates local proxy ports. When a user wants to connect to a PostgreSQL database, the StrongDM client opens localhost:5432 and proxies traffic through the gateway to the target database. This means native tools—psql, mysql, DataGrip, kubectl—work without modification.

The trade-off is clear: you get native tool compatibility at the cost of requiring every user to install, update, and troubleshoot the client application. For full-time engineers on managed laptops, this is a minor inconvenience. For contractors working from personal devices, vendor support teams accessing during incidents, or auditors reviewing access patterns, the client requirement introduces delay and support burden.

OnePAM: Browser-Native Sessions

OnePAM moves the protocol handling server-side. The session broker maintains connections to target infrastructure and renders interactive sessions in the browser. SSH sessions appear as a browser-based terminal. Database access provides a SQL console with syntax highlighting and result tables. Kubernetes access offers both a visual interface and command execution.

The trade-off here is reversed: you get zero-install access for any user on any device, at the cost of not using native desktop tools. Engineers who prefer iTerm2 with custom key bindings or DataGrip with stored procedures will notice the difference. But for the access patterns that PAM typically governs—production troubleshooting, incident response, compliance-driven access reviews—the browser interface is more than sufficient.

Database Proxy Depth

Session Recording Fidelity

Both platforms record sessions, but the implementation and playback experience differ meaningfully:

StrongDM captures protocol-level traffic and reconstructs sessions for playback. SSH sessions are recorded as terminal streams. Database sessions log individual queries with timestamps. The recording is faithful to what happened on the wire.

OnePAM records the rendered session as the user experienced it in the browser. SSH recordings include the visual terminal state, scrollback, and command output. Database recordings show queries, results, and timing. The key difference is that OnePAM recordings are immediately playable in any browser—no special viewer needed.

Pricing Model Analysis

Pricing is where architectural choices create real financial consequences at scale:

Contractor and Vendor Access

This is where architectural differences create the largest practical impact. Consider a common scenario: a database vendor needs access to troubleshoot a performance issue on your production PostgreSQL cluster.

With StrongDM: Create the vendor’s account, send them client download instructions, wait for installation, troubleshoot any client issues (firewall, OS compatibility, version conflicts), then grant resource access. Typical time-to-first-access: 15–45 minutes.

With OnePAM: Send the vendor a browser link. They authenticate via your IdP (or a temporary email-based login), accept the access grant, and connect to the database in the browser. Typical time-to-first-access: 2–5 minutes.

Operational Overhead Comparison

• Client management (StrongDM): Distribute, update, and troubleshoot desktop clients across your user population
• Gateway operations (StrongDM): Deploy, monitor, and scale gateway instances in each network segment
• Agent deployment (OnePAM): Install lightweight agent on target hosts or use agentless mode for databases
• Certificate management: Neither requires user-facing certificate management (unlike Teleport)
• Upgrade coordination: StrongDM requires coordinated client + gateway upgrades; OnePAM upgrades server-side only

Migration Approach

If you’re considering migrating from StrongDM to OnePAM (or vice versa), the transition is simpler than migrating from certificate-based systems because neither tool modifies your infrastructure’s authentication configuration:

• Run both platforms in parallel: Neither conflicts with the other since both use proxy/broker models
• Migrate by user group: Start with contractors and vendors (who benefit most from browser access), then move engineering teams
• Transfer access policies: Export StrongDM role definitions and recreate equivalent policies in OnePAM
• Verify recording continuity: Ensure session recording coverage matches before decommissioning
• Retain historical recordings: Export StrongDM recordings for compliance retention before cancellation

Evaluation Pilot Design

Run a focused 2-week pilot that tests the dimensions that matter most for your team:

Security Model Differences

The architectural difference creates distinct security properties that matter for threat modeling:

StrongDM’s client model places trust in the endpoint. The desktop client handles credential material, maintains persistent connections, and manages local proxy ports. If the endpoint is compromised, the attacker inherits the user’s active sessions and cached authentication state. StrongDM mitigates this with device trust policies and short session TTLs, but the fundamental trust anchor is the managed device.

OnePAM’s browser model places trust in the server-side broker. No credential material exists on the endpoint. The browser holds only a session cookie tied to the SSO identity. If the endpoint is compromised, the attacker must still authenticate through the IdP and MFA to establish a new session—there is no cached credential to steal. The trade-off is that the session broker becomes a high-value target that must be hardened accordingly.

Deployment Complexity

Consider the operational work required to deploy and maintain each platform at scale:

• StrongDM initial setup: Deploy gateways in each VPC/network segment, configure relay chains for multi-region, distribute client to all users via MDM
• OnePAM initial setup: Install agent on target hosts or configure agentless database connections, configure SSO integration, invite users via email
• StrongDM ongoing: Gateway patching, client version management, gateway scaling for traffic growth, troubleshooting client connectivity issues
• OnePAM ongoing: Agent updates (auto-updating), SSO integration maintenance, policy refinement based on access patterns

Related Resources

• Detailed StrongDM vs OnePAM feature comparison
• Full alternatives analysis
• Browser-based database access demo
• Audit log and session recording documentation
• Pricing and plan comparison