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

Axonius vs Brinqa comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Axonius
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
IT Vendor Risk Management (6th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (1st)
Brinqa
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (43rd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (32nd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (18th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. Axonius is designed for Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) and holds a mindshare of 37.1%, down 44.1% compared to last year.
Brinqa, on the other hand, focuses on Vulnerability Management, holds 0.4% mindshare, down 0.4% since last year.
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Kirubakaran Jayakumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Agentless and can easily integrate with other platforms and provides robust API monitoring capabilities
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.
RB
Allows us to configure the risk algorithm to suit our specific needs
I would give the easiness of the initial setup a seven out of ten. It can be a bit complex. Some connections are straightforward, but some take a long time. Deploying Brinqa took time, as it was done in phases. Initially, it took about six months before we started getting valuable data from it. Then, it expanded from there. The deployment began with a product demo and contract negotiation. We connected some data sources to Brinqa's cloud service, which was straightforward. We used the default risk ranking algorithm but faced issues with the dashboards, so we customized them to fit our organization's needs over a few years. We depended a lot on Brinqa for the deployment. We had some internal resources, but they lacked the needed skills, so it took time to train our two-man team. Initially, it required one person for maintenance, and they spent most of their time on it.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I like that the tool has a user-friendly interface. It helps organizations and big companies improve business requirements and control processes."
"he best feature I found in Axonius is that it shows us the duration of eCheck, and it shows us what device is down and in which part of the system life cycle or the checking part the system is down in."
"The automation capabilities in Axonius have streamlined our security operations."
"The solution's technical support was good...The product's initial setup phase is pretty straightforward."
"Axonius provides preconfigured dashboards that can be customized to your needs."
"The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
 

Cons

"We can have fetch cycle issues."
"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."
"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."
"Axonius can improve on delivering compliance-related features."
"Adding more detailed descriptions or YouTube videos about specific features would help improve the application."
"For us, the product's deployment phase was a little challenging because we had to deal with other departments and business units."
"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Axonius is quite a bit cheaper compared to other solutions."
"We are on a subscription model with them."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) solutions are best for your needs.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Retailer
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
9%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Axonius?
Axonius is quite a bit cheaper compared to other solutions. And the amount of value they provide is really huge compared to other vendors. So, it’s based on the actual requirement and how you want ...
What needs improvement with Axonius?
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 da...
What is your primary use case for Axonius?
We use it for reporting, noncompliance reporting, and identifying gaps. We use it for API monitoring within our company. And we also use it as a CMDB. Our security team, people within the SOC team,...
What do you like most about Brinqa?
The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Brinqa?
I would rate the costliness of the solution at a seven out of ten. It is on the expensive side and there are some additional fees.
What needs improvement with Brinqa?
Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision. We felt they were somewhat slow in assisting us in maturing our processes. Additionally, we encountered some stab...
 

Comparisons

 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Extreme Engineering Solutions, AppsFlyer, Landmark Health, Natera
Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Axonius, Qualys, JumpCloud and others in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM). Updated: December 2024.
824,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.