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

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management vs watchTowr comparison

 

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

Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
2nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Patch Management (4th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)
watchTowr
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
20th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Attack Surface Management (ASM) category, the mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 3.9%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of watchTowr is 1.5%, up from 0.8% 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 Management3.9%
watchTowr1.5%
Other94.6%
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

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.
Use watchTowr?
Leave a review
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
880,844 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Outsourcing Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise23
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about CrowdStrike, Qualys, Trend Micro and others in Attack Surface Management (ASM). Updated: January 2026.
880,844 professionals have used our research since 2012.