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

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management 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

Microsoft Defender External...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
12th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (32nd)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
3rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
32
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 Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management is 3.1%, up from 2.8% 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%
Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management3.1%
Other92.5%
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

AndyChan3 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced visibility and exposes vulnerabilities but needs more integration
I am currently in the pilot stage of implementing Microsoft External Attack Surface Management (EASM). My organization is transitioning to a comprehensive track of Microsoft solutions, and we will move to full-scale production in another year, maybe Microsoft External Attack Surface Management…
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

"Microsoft External Attack Surface Management helps improve the visibility of my exposed vulnerabilities and provides an overview of my security posture across the globe."
"Microsoft External Attack Surface Management helps improve the visibility of my exposed vulnerabilities and provides an overview of my security posture across the globe."
"It seems to be better at protecting from cyberattacks."
"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."
"With Qualys CSAM, we can see which assets have critical application vulnerabilities. This feature helps us prioritize and address these vulnerabilities more efficiently."
"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."
"What I appreciate most about Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is the inventory feature, where I can look up assets, software, applications, open ports, and similar items because it's very useful."
"I mainly appreciate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management for its patch management capabilities, which are essential in my job for deploying patches and remediating vulnerabilities."
"Authorized and unauthorized software visibility is the best feature for me. It helps me understand security controls on our network and where we lack visibility. With a single security tool, we are able to get an extensive list."
"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."
"The asset management part is very simple and essential, and Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management was particularly effective because the information was available exactly where needed, enabling automation and quick access to necessary answers."
 

Cons

"The integration is not as seamless compared to competitors like Palo Alto."
"Further integration across different Microsoft products would be an improvement."
"With Microsoft, support is always crazy, it's not easy to get support."
"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."
"The only minor issue is occasionally being redirected to multiple teams, causing slight delays."
"With Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, it was very difficult to extract detections from the system."
"As of now, the support, results, and low false positives do not necessitate changes."
"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."
"One downside of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is that I would prefer to see a more interactive dashboard."
"All required features are available in Qualys CSAM. However, it would be helpful if Qualys CSAM started incorporating AI models. An inclusion of threat details for AI and LLM-related risks would be beneficial."
"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."
 

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."
"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."
"The pricing is market-competitive."
"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."
"Qualys offers excellent value for money."
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
15%
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 Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management?
Further integration across different Microsoft products would be an improvement. Introduction of more AI automation into the products would also be beneficial. The integration is not as seamless co...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management?
I am currently in the pilot stage of implementing Microsoft External Attack Surface Management (EASM). My organization is transitioning to a comprehensive track of Microsoft solutions, and we will ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
For vulnerability management, we have a good price. We have a solid deal in place for the first and second years. However, as we expand to multiple locations, the pricing varies. For some clients, ...
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
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. It should support...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
We use Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management mainly for asset management consolidation because we are using different tools. We have around 256 locations and 480 sites. We have created multiple pla...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,778 professionals have used our research since 2012.