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

Bitsight vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 27, 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

Bitsight
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
IT Vendor Risk Management (3rd)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
3rd
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
24
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (8th), Patch Management (5th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Software Supply Chain Security (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Attack Surface Management (ASM) category, the mindshare of Bitsight is 4.6%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 4.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Attack Surface Management (ASM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management4.4%
Bitsight4.6%
Other91.0%
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

Alfredo Alvim - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides comprehensive insights into security posture
We work directly on their website to define all the assets that we need to scan. We have some meetings with the manager. For example, we set objectives to evaluate cyber risk periodically in our organization. One of these objectives is to assess the rating for our internal enterprise. We maintain a comprehensive database to ensure compatibility with our objectives. We aim to prevent a decrease in our security rating and maintain its value over time.
Nicki Møller - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables automation and quick access to necessary information
One of the significant challenges Qualys is discovery, which I know Microsoft excels at. I can't recall how well Qualys performs this function; it seems I might be missing some details. However, if there's one key aspect to focus on, it's discovery—the ability to identify assets that you are not aware of, even when you can see they are present. Understanding what those assets are is crucial. With Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, it was very difficult to extract detections from the system. The features within Qualys are limited to what they have developed. Sometimes a complete overview is needed to push to a Power BI dashboard, Splunk, ServiceNow, or other platforms. The export process is incredibly challenging. We needed a developer to write a hundred-line Python script that would loop over certain assets due to export limitations. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management could improve its integration capabilities. While it generates substantial data, correlating it with other data sources can be challenging. The export process is difficult, and pre-built integrations with other tools could be enhanced for better process implementation.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best thing about BitSight is the comprehensive list of risk vectors, covering compromised systems, diligence failures, and behavioral anomalies."
"Its customer service team responds quickly."
"Offers open ports from an external point of view."
"The product helps us identify the vulnerabilities of internet-facing applications."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"I prefer BitSight due to its patch management capabilities. The score is a valuable feature. I have contacted the customer support through e-mail and their response rate is fast. I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The integration with different third-party tools, such as cloud providers like Azure and AWS, and asset management tools like CMDB systems, is valuable."
"The scanning results are pretty good, and some insights are quite valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time visibility Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management provides into all assets across our development and operational environments."
"The most valuable aspect we receive from Qualys is the remediation."
"When you implement a dynamic tag using a query, you do not need to manually tag all the servers. It categorizes all the servers that come under that query. The tagging part is automatically done within a few minutes. It reduces the effort."
"Qualys CSAM helps find all the assets. It categorizes information based on various criteria such as host and tenant version. It provides in-depth visibility into both hardware and software."
"I would rate Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten."
"I appreciate the feature that simplifies cloud security posture, offering insights into vulnerabilities, and reducing the complexity of managing the security program."
 

Cons

"BitSight could improve the classes and lower-level detections of anomalies that compound the information used to compute the rating."
"The solution’s benchmarking should be improved."
"There may be room for improvement in the methodology for identifying findings, as occasional errors occur on the technical side."
"Its factor analysis feature could be better."
"Data enrichment is the major issue."
"At the moment, when the vulnerability score decreases, it remains the same for quite a while, even though issues are resolved in 24 hours."
"Based on the company's budget, Qualys offers limited features, which can also be utilized in other environments."
"Some areas that would be helpful are more comprehensive tagging and the ability to set up better dynamic rules."
"Integration of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, particularly with ServiceNow, takes a very long time, and it needs prioritization of patch rules based on vulnerability risk."
"There can be further simplification to reduce the overall noise and provide ESAM-related data."
"In our reporting, we faced a challenge syncing with cloud devices."
"Qualys could improve by enhancing its dynamic tagging and role-based access control features, and by refining its user interface for a more intuitive and efficient user experience."
"We have had challenges modifying the agent configuration. Particularly, when we want to change the tenant that the agent is pointing to, we have had difficulties making that reliable and working properly."
"The scanning function could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's price is average."
"The product has a reasonable price."
"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."
"The Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management pricing is well-aligned with our usage."
"Qualys offers excellent value for money."
"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."
"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 for Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management is reasonable, with an annual subscription costing around $1,000 per year or a monthly subscription starting at approximately $72 per month, depending on the specific package and features included."
"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 Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for BitSight?
The product is a little expensive and very oriented to large companies.
What needs improvement with BitSight?
BitSight could improve the classes and lower-level detections of anomalies that compound the information used to compute the rating. They could evolve to be a more powerful scanner of cyber hygiene...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
We are currently using a cheaper solution, and I sometimes get the feeling that our solution is less stable. When things go wrong and you don't get the expected results, it becomes very difficult t...
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
One of the significant challenges Qualys is discovery, which I know Microsoft excels at. I can't recall how well Qualys performs this function; it seems I might be missing some details. However, if...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
We are using Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for daily activities such as identifying new assets through network scanning and agent-based scanning for newly provisioned assets. When any new a...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fannie Mae, Cabela's, BNP Paribas, PWC, AIR Worldwide, Con Edison, The Container Store, OshKosh, Steris, University of South Florida, Emblem Health, Lloyds Bank
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Bitsight vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
868,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.