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

Cymulate vs XM Cyber comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Cymulate
Ranking in Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Threat Intelligence Platforms (16th), Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (2nd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (11th)
XM Cyber
Ranking in Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (29th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) category, the mindshare of Cymulate is 35.3%, down from 47.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of XM Cyber is 35.9%, down from 47.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)
 

Featured Reviews

Ondrej Kováč - PeerSpot reviewer
Advanced cybersecurity solution for attack based vulnerability mng. and upskill platform for SOC.
While Cymulate's technology shows great promise and delivers excellent results, their approach to positioning the solution appears to overlap with other companies like Tenable, making them both direct and indirect competitors. Cymulate must refine their messaging and manage expectations effectively. In my experience, they need to be more attentive internally and mindful of potential negative impacts on customers. They exhibit a high degree of flexibility, which can result in sudden changes without adequate alerting. Communicating with them via phone for business matters can be challenging. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cymulate's technology level at eight, but their business level at four out of ten.
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

"Cymulate is easy to set up, install, and configure."
"The reporting capabilities are very good."
"The most valuable feature for us is the zero-day."
"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

"The product must provide consultancy for initial setup."
"The cost can be quite high, and it impacts scalability as more simulations require additional expenses."
"The reporting process requires significant improvement as it often takes longer than expected and the quality is lacking."
"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

"The product is affordable."
"Cymulate's services are expensive."
"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.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
5%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cymulate?
The most valuable feature for us is the zero-day.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cymulate?
The pricing for Cymulate could be better. If I were to rate it, it would be a six out of ten.
What needs improvement with Cymulate?
The main area for improvement in Cymulate is its pricing. The cost can be quite high, and it impacts scalability as more simulations require additional expenses.
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 a seven out of ten.
What needs improvement with XM Cyber?
XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas.
 

Comparisons

 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Euronext, YMCA, Telit, Nemours 
Hamburg Port Authority, Plymouth Rock Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Cymulate vs. XM Cyber and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.