Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Verodin
Ranking in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
10th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
XM Cyber
Ranking in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (26th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2024, in the Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) category, the mindshare of Verodin is 1.6%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of XM Cyber is 9.1%, down from 10.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
Unique Categories:
No other categories found
Vulnerability Management
2.5%
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
0.7%
 

Featured Reviews

TP
Dec 22, 2020
Stable with good updates but needs a better integration engine
The integration engine needs to improve. We try to integrate it with other tools, especially with Splunk or with the MyDLP engine, and even with Microsoft Exchange. As much as they tried to make it seem like it was easy, it wasn't easy. There was a lot of stuff that we had to do that we ended up having to do via an API or something special for a new case. That's a big issue for me. Integration is daunting. It leaves a lot of room for failure and frustration. There are just little nuances that make everything difficult. You're supposed to be able to flip this toggle thing here, and you're supposed to be able to get the feedthrough from Splunk. Then, from there everything should be perfectly fine. However, when you find out it is not perfectly fine and you find out that it's because this thing isn't necessarily correct, you have to do an update on it or they have to update their file to make it work correctly. It's very small, minute things that aren't quite right. It's not something that you can really pinpoint. There's a lot of nuanced issues. It the nuanced technical issues that you would notice once you cross its path. It's not one of those "Hey, this is something I would know off the top of my head." They are very small nuance issues that make you say "Oh, well I guess we've got to go and change this thing now." You get this with certain tools - mostly with Mandiant tools more than anything else in general. It's one of those Mandiant quirks that still carries on and persists to this day - even with this tool.
HolgerHeimann - PeerSpot reviewer
Jul 6, 2022
Reliable with no false-positives and helpful support
There's a lot of improvement possible, however, most of it is in the details. I personally like the concept, as it's pretty straightforward and the product is not trying to overload functionality. It's a clean and straightforward approach. You know what you get. Most of the improvements are detail improvements. They're pretty open to future requests as well, so we send them a lot of suggestions. For example, at the moment, they have something called Battleground. That's a visualization of the network, and it's a visualization of the attack paths that are possible. The program uses so-called scenarios, and we say, "Okay, I'm watching traffic for maybe 24 hours," and then you get a result for that scenario, what happens in that time with what the attack paths are, et cetera. The result of the same scenario yesterday or tomorrow may be different as something might change. In that, one of the things I'm currently missing, which is on the list to be added, is some kind of diff visualization. For example, showing a two-screen split of activity. On the left side of the screen, that's how it was yesterday; on the right side, that's how it is today; and here are the differences. We'd like to see a cheaper price.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is constantly updating. Their data and security validation are cutting-edge."
"What I personally like very much, from my experience, is that it is very reliable."
"The platform's most valuable feature is attack simulation."
 

Cons

"The integration engine needs to improve."
"We'd like to see a cheaper price."
"XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We have to pay standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
7%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about XM Cyber?
The platform's most valuable feature is attack simulation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for XM Cyber?
We have to pay standard licensing fees. There are no additional costs. It is an expensive product. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with XM Cyber?
XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas.
 

Comparisons

 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

AAFCU, Amuse, Axway, Bank Gutmann, Bank of Thailand, BCC Corporation, Blackboat, CapWealth Advisors, CBC, CERN, Lagardère, Land Bank of the Philippines, laya healthcare, Lindsay Automotive Group
Hamburg Port Authority, Plymouth Rock Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Pentera, Cymulate, Picus Security and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). Updated: May 2024.
787,779 professionals have used our research since 2012.