Axonius could improve by increasing their integrations with more technology vendors. There are cases where Axonius doesn't have full compatibility with some newer solutions that have recently appeared in the market. It would be beneficial for Axonius to keep updated on these solutions to enhance asset inventory management. Additionally, having embedded AI within their solutions would also be advantageous.
Axonius can improve on delivering compliance-related features, like PCI DSS, and different dashboards that work with various compliances. For example, if a company follows ISO, they can create a dashboard that shows the gaps within that compliance framework. They have started delivering some of these features, but the tool still needs to mature for companies that heavily rely on certain standards, like payment compliances or cloud security guidelines. In those cases, the tool might need further development. However, I haven’t had specific issues because they are really good at fixing things. Whenever we report or escalate something, they are quick in providing solutions. I think they are very flexible in terms of working with them. But at the same time, they are customizing the solution too much based on client requirements. This might cause issues in the future because if they keep customizing the solution for every single client’s requirement, they might face difficulties in future releases. Integrating every customer’s options within the platform might be challenging to handle. That might be a risk they are taking. But we have had good communication with them, and overall, it’s been positive.
For Axonius, I would suggest supporting more ticketing platforms and enhancing API integration directly into the platform rather than just the connector. This would allow for better integration from different systems, possibly into workflows, which I think is currently lacking.
IT Security System Administrator I at Mouser Electronics
Real User
Top 10
May 24, 2024
Regarding the improvement of Axonius, it goes halfway for both the tool and the user. If we set it up quickly from our end, and if the AD groups and all other groups assigned to tag the assets have been tagged correctly, Axonius could not show an error. But we are still sorting out our segregation for assets as well. However, Axonius can't pull out the exact reports, but there is a way around this, where we can use the built-in queries. For example, we have CentOS systems, and within CentOS, we have tagged assets with vulnerabilities, but these assets do not appear in Axonius. As an alternative, what we do for this is write a query to find the vulnerability of assets that are tagged within CentOS systems. I would say both the tool and the user must work together to get good results.
Axonius offers robust asset management, enhancing network visibility by consolidating data from various devices. It excels in automatic device categorization for up-to-date inventories, crucial for compliance and risk assessments. Key features include automated policy enforcement and comprehensive reporting tools, which streamline workflows and improve organizational productivity and security compliance. Integrations with other IT tools further enhance its efficiency.
Axonius could improve by increasing their integrations with more technology vendors. There are cases where Axonius doesn't have full compatibility with some newer solutions that have recently appeared in the market. It would be beneficial for Axonius to keep updated on these solutions to enhance asset inventory management. Additionally, having embedded AI within their solutions would also be advantageous.
Adding more detailed descriptions or YouTube videos about specific features would help improve the application.
Axonius can improve on delivering compliance-related features, like PCI DSS, and different dashboards that work with various compliances. For example, if a company follows ISO, they can create a dashboard that shows the gaps within that compliance framework. They have started delivering some of these features, but the tool still needs to mature for companies that heavily rely on certain standards, like payment compliances or cloud security guidelines. In those cases, the tool might need further development. However, I haven’t had specific issues because they are really good at fixing things. Whenever we report or escalate something, they are quick in providing solutions. I think they are very flexible in terms of working with them. But at the same time, they are customizing the solution too much based on client requirements. This might cause issues in the future because if they keep customizing the solution for every single client’s requirement, they might face difficulties in future releases. Integrating every customer’s options within the platform might be challenging to handle. That might be a risk they are taking. But we have had good communication with them, and overall, it’s been positive.
For Axonius, I would suggest supporting more ticketing platforms and enhancing API integration directly into the platform rather than just the connector. This would allow for better integration from different systems, possibly into workflows, which I think is currently lacking.
Regarding the improvement of Axonius, it goes halfway for both the tool and the user. If we set it up quickly from our end, and if the AD groups and all other groups assigned to tag the assets have been tagged correctly, Axonius could not show an error. But we are still sorting out our segregation for assets as well. However, Axonius can't pull out the exact reports, but there is a way around this, where we can use the built-in queries. For example, we have CentOS systems, and within CentOS, we have tagged assets with vulnerabilities, but these assets do not appear in Axonius. As an alternative, what we do for this is write a query to find the vulnerability of assets that are tagged within CentOS systems. I would say both the tool and the user must work together to get good results.