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

Ivanti Neurons for RBVM vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

Sponsored
 

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

Zafran Security
Sponsored
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
18th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (3rd)
Ivanti Neurons for RBVM
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
57th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (4th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (2nd), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 1.1%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Ivanti Neurons for RBVM is 0.5%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 1.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management1.3%
Zafran Security1.1%
Ivanti Neurons for RBVM0.5%
Other97.1%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Reviewer6233 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal
While Zafran Security is already a powerful tool, there are areas where it could be further improved to provide even greater value. One key area for enhancement is the searching capabilities within its vulnerabilities module. By incorporating the ability to create Boolean searches, users would gain the ability to apply more complex filters and customize their search criteria. This would greatly enhance the precision and efficiency with which security teams can identify and prioritize vulnerabilities. Having such tailored search capabilities would save time and resources by narrowing down vast lists of vulnerabilities to those that meet specific parameters relevant to our unique risk environment. Additionally, integrating more robust reporting and visualization tools would be advantageous. Enhanced dashboards that offer customizable visual representations of risk configurations and threat landscapes would facilitate better communication with stakeholders, making it easier to explain vulnerabilities and the rationale behind certain security measures. This would also aid in demonstrating the improvements and value derived from existing security investments to leadership and non-technical team members.
Anon127 - PeerSpot reviewer
Security Analyst at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Useful for vulnerability management with many integrations
We use RiskSense for vulnerability management, and we have many integrations.  The solution is deployed on cloud. We use this solution daily. There are more than 200 people using this solution in my organization Most of the features are similar to what other tools have, but the UIs are quite user…
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

"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"We saw benefits from Zafran Security almost immediately after deploying it."
"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"With Zafran Security, it integrates with your security controls, allowing you to take that risk score and reduce it based on the controls in place or increase the risk based on different factors, such as if the issue is internet reachable or if there's an exploit in the wild."
"Overall, we have seen about eighty-seven percent reduction of the number of vulnerabilities that require urgency to remediate, specifically the number of criticals."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"Most of the features are similar to what other tools have, but the UIs are quite user friendly. A beginner could use it."
"I mainly appreciate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for its patch management capabilities, which are essential in my job for deploying patches and remediating vulnerabilities."
"The end-of-life and end-of-service software and hardware are some of my favorite features."
"Getting different kinds of modules and inventory in one solution is good enough."
"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."
"The scanning results are pretty good, and some insights are quite valuable."
"I recommend Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management due to its superior asset information collection capabilities, including comprehensive hardware and software inventorying."
"The fact that it is integrated makes it very easy to understand."
"With Qualys CSAM, we can see which assets have critical application vulnerabilities. This feature helps us prioritize and address these vulnerabilities more efficiently."
 

Cons

"I think the ability to have some enhanced reporting capabilities is something they can improve on, as they have good reports but we have asked for some specific reporting enhancements."
"The dashboarding and reporting functionality of Zafran Security is an area that definitely could use some improvements."
"Initially, we were somewhat concerned about the scalability of Zafran due to our large asset count and the substantial amount of information we needed to process."
"I would also like to see more integrations, plugins, and user-friendly automation, similar to the multiple integration scripts that Rapid7 has."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management could be more cost-effective by offering a lower price point or integrating with existing VMDR features."
"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 deployment is somewhat complicated and could be made more user-friendly for most users."
"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."
"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."
"In my opinion, the area that needs improvement is the role-based access control (RBAC). The access privilege management needs to be more robust and streamlined to enhance user access management. Additionally, improvements to the user interface could be beneficial."
"It is automatically exporting the vulnerabilities and the assets. However, it would be useful to have the ability to select or to filter which we would like to export."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"The pricing for Qualys CSAM is nominal."
"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 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."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"The pricing is reasonable relative to the features provided, as it collects all module data and operates as a main, centralized inventory, making it a cost-effective solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
880,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
9%
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
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
Since we stood Zafran Security up in our private cloud, we handle the maintenance on our side. As we opted not to use...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
In terms of areas for improvement, Zafran Security is doing a really great job as a new and emerging company. Oftenti...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
My use cases for Zafran Security revolve around two primary areas. One is around vulnerability management and priorit...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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 ...
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
RiskSense
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Care First, City of Alburquerque, Electric Company El Paso, State of Arizona, Washington Gas
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Wiz, Tenable, Qualys and others in Vulnerability Management. Updated: January 2026.
880,901 professionals have used our research since 2012.