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

Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management comparison

 

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

Microsoft Defender External...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
13th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (33rd)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Attack Surface Management (ASM)
4th
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (11th), Patch Management (8th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (2nd), Software Supply Chain Security (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Attack Surface Management (ASM) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management is 2.8%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 2.7%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Attack Surface Management (ASM)
 

Featured Reviews

AndyChan3 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enhanced visibility and exposes vulnerabilities but needs more integration
I am currently in the pilot stage of implementing Microsoft External Attack Surface Management (EASM). My organization is transitioning to a comprehensive track of Microsoft solutions, and we will move to full-scale production in another year, maybe Microsoft External Attack Surface Management…
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

"Microsoft External Attack Surface Management helps improve the visibility of my exposed vulnerabilities and provides an overview of my security posture across the globe."
"Microsoft External Attack Surface Management helps improve the visibility of my exposed vulnerabilities and provides an overview of my security posture across the globe."
"It seems to be better at protecting from cyberattacks."
"Overall, I would give Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management a nine out of ten."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management offers valuable features such as continuous vendor support, rapid response times, dedicated vendor partnerships, and advanced technical capabilities for risk identification."
"I recommend Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management due to its superior asset information collection capabilities, including comprehensive hardware and software inventorying."
"Tags are very useful for us since we can tag virus applications in infrastructure types such as databases, operating systems, or web platforms."
"I would rate Qualys CSAM a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the Management sensor, which helps identify gaps in policy agent availability, thereby improving agent utilization."
"The most valuable aspect we receive from Qualys is the remediation."
"The scanning results are pretty good, and some insights are quite valuable."
 

Cons

"With Microsoft, support is always crazy, it's not easy to get support."
"Further integration across different Microsoft products would be an improvement."
"The integration is not as seamless compared to competitors like Palo Alto."
"The UI needs improvement as it can become overwhelming after prolonged use."
"Some areas that would be helpful are more comprehensive tagging and the ability to set up better dynamic rules."
"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."
"All required features are available in Qualys CSAM. However, it would be helpful if Qualys CSAM started incorporating AI models. An inclusion of threat details for AI and LLM-related risks would be beneficial."
"They should address the false positives generated in EASM. It is fetching assets that have Infosys as the keyword."
"Based on the company's budget, Qualys offers limited features, which can also be utilized in other environments."
"There can be further simplification to reduce the overall noise and provide ESAM-related data."
"Currently, in the EASM module, the scan frequency is limited to once daily, but allowing end users control over scan scheduling would be advantageous."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
"Qualys offers excellent value for money."
"The Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management pricing is well-aligned with our usage."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"The pricing for Qualys CSAM is nominal."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is market-competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Attack Surface Management (ASM) solutions are best for your needs.
842,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Healthcare Company
5%
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
8%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management?
Further integration across different Microsoft products would be an improvement. Introduction of more AI automation into the products would also be beneficial. The integration is not as seamless co...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management?
I am currently in the pilot stage of implementing Microsoft External Attack Surface Management (EASM). My organization is transitioning to a comprehensive track of Microsoft solutions, and we will ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
The Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management pricing is well-aligned with our usage.
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
Qualys is continually developing, adding new features each year. Previously, there was no on-demand scan feature in a cloud agent, but multiple features have since been added to my cloud agent modu...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
I have been working with Qualys for approximately two and a half years. I have used this module to manage security postures in cloud environments, and it is essentially used for hybrid management s...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender External Attack Surface Management vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.
842,592 professionals have used our research since 2012.