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

OctoXLabs 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

OctoXLabs
Ranking in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
12th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
3rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (10th), Patch Management (4th), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (2nd), Software Supply Chain Security (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) category, the mindshare of OctoXLabs is 2.4%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 11.4%, up from 6.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management11.4%
OctoXLabs2.4%
Other86.2%
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
 

Featured Reviews

Use OctoXLabs?
Leave a review
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) solutions are best for your needs.
885,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

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

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 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

Find out what your peers are saying about Armis, Axonius, Qualys and others in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM). Updated: March 2026.
885,286 professionals have used our research since 2012.