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

JupiterOne vs Surface Command comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 11, 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

JupiterOne
Ranking in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (51st), Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (22nd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (29th)
Surface Command
Ranking in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
8th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Attack Surface Management (ASM) (31st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) category, the mindshare of JupiterOne is 5.2%, down from 5.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Surface Command is 4.4%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
JupiterOne5.2%
Surface Command4.4%
Other90.4%
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
 

Featured Reviews

B Goswami - PeerSpot reviewer
Product Manager at Zidio development
Unified cloud visibility has simplified compliance reporting and improved incident response
Regarding performance and speed scenarios for JupiterOne, queries sometimes take too long, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex graph relationships that can slow down significantly. There is also a steep learning curve, as J1QL, their query language, is powerful but requires time to learn. New users struggle initially, and better onboarding tutorials are needed. Rate limiting issues can be frustrating, as API rate limits sometimes cause problems. Price transparency for JupiterOne is an area for improvement. The price is not publicly listed, so you have to contact sales for smaller teams or startups, which becomes a barrier. Another issue is alert noise, as sometimes too many alerts are generated. Better filtering and prioritization are needed so that critical issues do not get lost. JupiterOne is very good when compared to other cloud asset platforms overall.
Use Surface Command?
Leave a review
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Healthcare Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
16%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Media Company
7%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with JupiterOne?
There are some features that I have shared with our customer service manager. One of them that is relevant to us at this time is the need for better determination of unified devices. Currently, Jup...
What is your primary use case for JupiterOne?
Our main use case for JupiterOne is as an asset catalog tool where we document all our assets that are integrated from different platforms such as Device42, Qualys, Microsoft M365, and Defender. We...
What advice do you have for others considering JupiterOne?
JupiterOne has many features. Although none comes to mind almost immediately, I know it often depends on how we are able to write or craft the queries. JupiterOne has been very instrumental to me i...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Noetic
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Axonius, Armis, Qualys and others in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM). Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.