No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CyCognito vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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

CyCognito
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
12th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
3.3
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (9th)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
3rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Patch Management (4th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Software Supply Chain Security (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Attack Surface Management (ASM) category, the mindshare of CyCognito is 2.2%, down from 3.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 3.4%, down from 3.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Attack Surface Management (ASM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management3.4%
CyCognito2.2%
Other94.4%
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

VO
IT Specialist at Squemart
Automated attack surface mapping has improved risk visibility but still needs better guidance
I believe CyCognito could improve by lowering the false positive rate. When false positives occur with CyCognito, we experience frustrating delays in customer support. Standard support tickets for complaints often take too long to resolve. Additionally, the remediation workflow guidance is sometimes criticized for lacking clear step-by-step instructions on fixing vulnerabilities, requiring manual engineering research. Adding specific code fixes or configuration lines could prevent teams from manually figuring out corrections. Moreover, the tool is somewhat expensive, particularly for small to medium businesses such as ours, pushing smaller IT teams to utilize lower-cost or open-source alternatives. Ideally, a pricing tier favorable to these smaller organizations would be beneficial. I also suggest a consumption-based model based on testing frequency rather than total asset count to enhance platform accessibility. CyCognito also lacks native compliance questionnaire management and vendor scorecard tracking, which could improve overall utility. Finally, while it maps third-party parameters, it cannot fully address lateral movement paths as some other scanners can, requiring reliance on external API integration.
Nicki Møller - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security Engineer at a manufacturing company with 5,001-10,000 employees
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

"Since using CyCognito, we have observed specific outcomes, for the last operational year, we had about 30 to 50 percent more risk surface with hidden internet-exposed assets that traditional internal scanning tools missed, MTTR was reduced by more than 60 percent, compressing timelines to patch critical vulnerabilities from weeks or months down to days, the prioritization engine filtered out noise, forcing the security team to focus on a small fraction of exploitable risks, we also saw a less than 5 percent false positive rate, which eliminated hours of manual validation work, and we have saved significantly annually due to automated external testing, reducing reliance on manual penetration testing and expensive external bug bounty programs."
"Tags are very useful for us since we can tag virus applications in infrastructure types such as databases, operating systems, or web platforms."
"The most valuable feature is the real-time visibility Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management provides into all assets across our development and operational environments."
"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."
"It provides most of the information needed regarding the assets, including the operating system and whether the assets are network devices or servers."
"There are no stability issues, and I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management ten out of ten."
"I would rate the Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten for its overall performance."
"I like the EASM part because it provides visibility into unmanaged assets that are public-facing."
 

Cons

"When false positives occur with CyCognito, we experience frustrating delays in customer support."
"Currently, in the EASM module, the scan frequency is limited to once daily, but allowing end users control over scan scheduling would be advantageous."
"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."
"Some areas that would be helpful are more comprehensive tagging and the ability to set up better dynamic rules."
"The scanning function could be improved."
"There have been a couple of times where Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management wasn't accessible and I'd reach out to our TAM and they'd say, 'Qualys is down.' They say, 'We'll let you know when it's back up.' Of course, they never let you know when it's back up."
"The UI and menu navigation has improved significantly, however, the menus could still be clunky, making navigation within the assets challenging."
"The Qualys CAPS service requires further exploration and improvement, particularly in its handling of protocols and reactivity with MAC and IP addresses for CAP agents."
"The deployment is somewhat complicated and could be made more user-friendly for most users. It is currently not user-friendly for all users. It is good but can be improved. It is a new product, and they are working on it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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 market-competitive."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"Qualys offers excellent value for money."
"The Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management pricing is well-aligned with our usage."
"It is cost-effective because, in a single tool, we are getting everything. All the solutions come in a single license or price."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
8%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

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 CyCognito?
I believe CyCognito could improve by lowering the false positive rate. When false positives occur with CyCognito, we experience frustrating delays in customer support. Standard support tickets for ...
What is your primary use case for CyCognito?
My main use case for CyCognito is attack surface management. It helps me bridge ethical considerations as it serves as a simulation of what an attacker would do in real life, allowing me to continu...
What advice do you have for others considering CyCognito?
CyCognito is deployed in our organization as a multi-tenant public cloud SaaS platform. It analyzes our infrastructure from an outside-in attacker perspective, so it is not deployed as a private cl...
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...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UTA, BERTELSMANN, WIPRO
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about TrendAI, CrowdStrike, Qualys and others in Attack Surface Management (ASM). Updated: August 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.