Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Apiiro vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Apiiro
Ranking in Software Supply Chain Security
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (24th), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (14th), API Security (15th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (17th), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (6th)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Software Supply Chain Security
4th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Patch Management (4th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Software Supply Chain Security category, the mindshare of Apiiro is 3.9%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 2.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Supply Chain Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management2.4%
Apiiro3.9%
Other93.7%
Software Supply Chain Security
 

Featured Reviews

Kunal M - PeerSpot reviewer
Capability Center Leader, ETRM Platforms at Shell
Comprehensive risk analysis helps identify key performance trends but report access needs improvement
My first feedback for Apiiro is that it is very slow, extremely slow. The moment I select from the entire list of repositories in my vertical, which is almost more than 400 repositories, it takes a lot of time for me to load the report. Sometimes it fails. I do not have Role-Based Access Control (RBAC). It's only given to the application security team, and Apiiro as a vendor does not have the rollback access control enabled for the clients, so that would have given me access to the reports tab, which would have made my life easier. Currently, I have to go to the risks tab to pull out all this information. I started exploring dashboards with Copilot. I need to reach out to the Apiiro teams to see if I can get an access token so that I can pull out a Power BI dashboard. I think Apiiro definitely has its own capabilities, but if there are access tokens that teams can use to build a custom dashboard, that would be great. This might already exist, but that is something which will ease the vulnerability management day-to-day activities.
AN
Cyber Security Specialist at UBS Financial
Customized dashboards and quick deployment support comprehensive asset management
We use the True Risk Score for vulnerability prioritization, though we do not solely rely upon it since some assets may be decommissioned soon or not in use. From Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, we primarily focus on internet-facing assets. We have created separate tasks for internet-facing assets and track the True Risk dashboard specifically for these assets. If the True Risk Score is higher for any internet-facing assets, then we take action accordingly. The True Risk Score is very helpful for prioritization. The initial setup was straightforward and easy. We needed to create customized tags, group them twice, and validate whether the operating system detection was true positive or false positive. We encountered some false positives, which required coordination with the IT team for verification. In six months, we had approximately 20-25 machines that needed verification on a weekly basis. We coordinated with the IT team to identify the exact operating system specifications.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The positive impact I have seen from working with Apiiro for my company includes the metrics that we get from Apiiro, which have been extremely helpful."
"The workflow automation is likely the best aspect of the solution."
"Apiiro's secrets detection feature has saved us several times, which we appreciate greatly."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management offers valuable features such as continuous vendor support, rapid response times, dedicated vendor partnerships, and advanced technical capabilities for risk identification."
"Regarding return on investment, I first look at the reality of the environment and the decrease in critical vulnerabilities with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, which equals a positive return on investment."
"There are no stability issues, and I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is definitely good for a big company; it really helps you keep an eye on your whole environment rather than little pieces here and there throughout your tech stack."
"I would rate Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable aspect we receive from Qualys is the remediation."
"We have a diverse organization with a robust infrastructure of more than 300,000 assets. By creating unauthorized lists and rules in the Qualys CSAM module, I can block certain software from being used in the organization."
"I use it primarily with tagging, asset counts, and groups that we can put them in, and we also use it to tell if a device has been merged and seen in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, so that's beneficial for us too."
 

Cons

"I would like support for our self-hosted Git server, other than GitHub, just regular Git."
"User management is a little bit clunky."
"The only minor issue is occasionally being redirected to multiple teams, causing slight delays."
"In the best practice for categorizing assets with the C-SAM module in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, I see potential for improvement with integration of other CMDB systems in creating a relationship with Qualys and other solutions."
"We've received very poor guidance from them, especially after learning several things we need to fix during the Qualys conference."
"In our reporting, we faced a challenge syncing with cloud devices."
"The main aspect that needs improvement is the user interface, which should be more intuitive."
"Currently, in the EASM module, the scan frequency is limited to once daily, but allowing end users control over scan scheduling would be advantageous."
"The UI needs improvement as it can become overwhelming after prolonged use."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management could be more cost-effective by offering a lower price point or integrating with existing VMDR features."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"Though the solution is considered expensive, if bundled with other services such as VMDR or cloud agents, its value would significantly increase. It is currently a bit costly, but with bundling, it could become attractive to more customers."
"Qualys is competitively priced for its features. Its pricing is suitable for large organizations with more than 4,000 assets, but for smaller organizations with few assets, such as banks, the costs might be high. They should come up with packages that are suitable for small organizations."
"The pricing is fair. I would love to see the price come down a little bit, but we do get a lot of value out of it. We are squeezing every ounce of value we can out of the tool."
"The pricing for Qualys CSAM is nominal."
"The pricing is market-competitive."
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
"It is cost-effective because, in a single tool, we are getting everything. All the solutions come in a single license or price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Supply Chain Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Outsourcing Company
9%
University
8%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Apiiro?
My first feedback for Apiiro is that it is very slow, extremely slow. The moment I select from the entire list of repositories in my vertical, which is almost more than 400 repositories, it takes a...
What is your primary use case for Apiiro?
My only use case is the reporting, which is correct. My role is limited because this is an additional role that I do on top of my day job, so it is only limited to pulling out reports and working w...
What advice do you have for others considering Apiiro?
I haven't explored Apiiro's advanced risk analysis features. I have not used the compliance monitoring feature of Apiiro so far. I am learning about Apiiro's AI-driven analytics for real-time feedb...
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
I think the one thing Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can do better is the package management and the updating process. Knowing that you can't update any of the packages until you've done the...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
I primarily use it for a small, single-site, multi-source setup with multi-WAN inputs. I have a main fiber connection and a couple of failovers while managing different networks across different se...
 

Also Known As

Apiiro Control Plane (ASOC), Apiiro API Security (SAST), Apiiro Open Source (SCA)
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Morgan Stanley, Rakuten, Jack Henry, SoFi, Colgate, Navan
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Apiiro vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.