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

IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 16, 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
27th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (6th)
IBM Guardium Vulnerability ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
49th
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
10th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (7th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (2nd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (4th), Software Supply Chain Security (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 0.4%. The mindshare of IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is 0.5%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management
 

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.
reviewer1714710 - PeerSpot reviewer
Worthwhile from the regulatory requirements and analytics perspective, but is expensive and not easy to use
We are a full security base integration and application business. We help with implementation and deployments. I used Guardium to help with a cloud migration to check and do some validation for a client's data landscape and services so that they made sure that they were all secure in overall…
Revathi VeeraRaghavan - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides comprehensive visibility and covers the complete attack surface
For some of the software, there was no life cycle or general information. We wanted them to give details in the database as and when the software comes. I raised a ticket for that, and after that, they updated the details for more than one million software. They should address the false positives generated in EASM. It is fetching assets that have Infosys as the keyword. They should fix that. When we click on the web application, it only shows potential web assets. The application details are not there. Overall, CSAM has matured a lot. These are the few enhancements that need to be done.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"The reporting features are good and there are many built-in reports that can be quickly configured."
"It helped with some of the regulatory requirements. It also helped with some of the security analytics and analysis. It was worthwhile from that perspective."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides a simple English recommendation on actions that you need to take once a vulnerability is discovered."
"The scanning results are pretty good, and some of the insights are quite valuable."
"We have had zero attacks since we enabled all the features in Qualys CSAM."
"Authorized and unauthorized software visibility is the best feature for me. It helps me understand security controls on our network and where we lack visibility. With a single security tool, we are able to get an extensive list."
"With Qualys CSAM, we can see which assets have critical application vulnerabilities. This feature helps us prioritize and address these vulnerabilities more efficiently."
"Overall, I would give Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management a nine out of ten."
"I would rate the Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten for its overall performance."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management has helped to improve the organization's security posture significantly."
"The most valuable features of Qualys CSAM include the ability to manage authorized and unauthorized applications efficiently. This feature helps in validating applications and maintaining a secure environment."
 

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."
"It was not as easy to use. The user-friendliness of it was somewhat lower than what I was expecting. It was also lacking in terms of the ease of the setup. There should be an automatic agent for deployment."
"The interface could be improved by having sub-groups of tests, ultimately making the process of collecting tests faster."
"Building policies is not that easy. There are some things that are turned off by default, for example, displaying values."
"The only minor issue is occasionally being redirected to multiple teams, causing slight delays."
"The Qualys CAPS service requires further exploration and improvement, particularly in its handling of protocols and reactivity with MAC and IP addresses for CAP agents."
"In my opinion, the area that needs improvement is the role-based access control (RBAC). The access privilege management needs to be more robust and streamlined to enhance user access management. Additionally, improvements to the user interface could be beneficial."
"We have had challenges modifying the agent configuration. Particularly, when we want to change the tenant that the agent is pointing to, we have had difficulties making that reliable and working properly."
"The main aspect that needs improvement is the user interface, which should be more intuitive."
"There can be further simplification to reduce the overall noise and provide ESAM-related data."
"Based on the company's budget, Qualys offers limited features, which can also be utilized in other environments."
"The deployment is somewhat complicated and could be made more user-friendly for most users. It is currently not user-friendly for all users. It is good but can be improved. It is a new product, and they are working on it."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"One thing not advantageous for it was that it was a little bit more expensive. I would rate it one out of five in terms of pricing."
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
"Qualys is competitively priced for its features. Its pricing is suitable for large organizations with more than 4,000 assets, but for smaller organizations with few assets, such as banks, the costs might be high. They should come up with packages that are suitable for small organizations."
"The pricing is market-competitive."
"The pricing is fair. I would love to see the price come down a little bit, but we do get a lot of value out of it. We are squeezing every ounce of value we can out of the tool."
"Qualys offers excellent value for money."
"Though the solution is considered expensive, if bundled with other services such as VMDR or cloud agents, its value would significantly increase. It is currently a bit costly, but with bundling, it could become attractive to more customers."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"The pricing for Qualys CSAM is nominal."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
9%
Retailer
6%
 

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 Zafran Security?
I find that the pricing for Zafran aligns well with the comprehensive features it offers. The asset and user-based li...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
While Zafran Security is already a powerful tool, there are areas where it could be further improved to provide even ...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
Our primary use case for Zafran involves leveraging it to enhance our vulnerability risk scoring methodology. In toda...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
The pricing is reasonable relative to the features provided, as it collects all module data and operates as a main, c...
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
The deployment is somewhat complicated and could be made more user-friendly for most users. It is currently not user-...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
We use it to identify all our assets, including those on our premises, cloud, and remote environments. It continuousl...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.