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

AttackIQ vs XM Cyber comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 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

Zafran Security
Sponsored
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
32nd
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (4th)
AttackIQ
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
67th
Average Rating
7.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (7th)
XM Cyber
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
34th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Controls Monitoring (7th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (26th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

Israel Cavazos Landini - PeerSpot reviewer
Weekly insights and risk analysis facilitate informed security decisions
I appreciate the weekly insights Zafran provides, which include critical topics for networks and IT security, allowing us to evaluate which insights apply to our environment. The organization score feature is valuable to keep the leadership team updated on how our infrastructure fares security-wise. The applicable risk level versus base risk level feature is beneficial because prior to Zafran, we only used the base risk level, but now understand that risk depends on the asset itself. Zafran is an excellent tool.
BN
Overall, a good user experience and works well but is hard to set up
I can't think of any features that are lacking just now. It does everything I need it to do. I don't have too much experience with the solution. I need more time to really study the solution to see if there are any shortcomings. The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time.
HolgerHeimann - PeerSpot reviewer
Reliable with no false-positives and helpful support
There's a lot of improvement possible, however, most of it is in the details. I personally like the concept, as it's pretty straightforward and the product is not trying to overload functionality. It's a clean and straightforward approach. You know what you get. Most of the improvements are detail improvements. They're pretty open to future requests as well, so we send them a lot of suggestions. For example, at the moment, they have something called Battleground. That's a visualization of the network, and it's a visualization of the attack paths that are possible. The program uses so-called scenarios, and we say, "Okay, I'm watching traffic for maybe 24 hours," and then you get a result for that scenario, what happens in that time with what the attack paths are, et cetera. The result of the same scenario yesterday or tomorrow may be different as something might change. In that, one of the things I'm currently missing, which is on the list to be added, is some kind of diff visualization. For example, showing a two-screen split of activity. On the left side of the screen, that's how it was yesterday; on the right side, that's how it is today; and here are the differences. We'd like to see a cheaper price.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"Overall, I've had a good experience with the product. It's worked well for me."
"The platform's most valuable feature is attack simulation."
"What I personally like very much, from my experience, is that it is very reliable."
 

Cons

"Initially, we were somewhat concerned about the scalability of Zafran due to our large asset count and the substantial amount of information we needed to process."
"The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time."
"We'd like to see a cheaper price."
"XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
Information not available
"We have to pay standard licensing fees."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) solutions are best for your needs.
842,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
University
6%
Retailer
6%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
11%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
University
5%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
Pricing for Zafran Security is not expensive. We have a contract for five years, and the cost is lower than other too...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
I would like to see an integration with Check Point firewalls. It's essential for us and they are currently working o...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
We use Zafran Security for threat prioritization. We establish priority to understand which risks should be patched o...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about XM Cyber?
The platform's most valuable feature is attack simulation.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for XM Cyber?
We have to pay standard licensing fees. There are no additional costs. It is an expensive product. I rate the pricing...
What needs improvement with XM Cyber?
XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
DeepSurface
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
Hamburg Port Authority, Plymouth Rock Corporation