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

Axonius vs Brinqa 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

Axonius
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
IT Vendor Risk Management (5th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (2nd)
Brinqa
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (55th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (49th), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (50th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (18th)
 

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 28.2%, down 36.2% compared to last year.
Brinqa, on the other hand, focuses on Vulnerability Management, holds 0.5% mindshare, up 0.5% since last year.
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Axonius28.2%
Armis19.4%
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management10.5%
Other41.900000000000006%
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Brinqa0.5%
Wiz7.5%
Tenable Nessus5.2%
Other86.8%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Director of cloud security at Nuxeo
Centralized asset tracking has transformed governance and now speeds incident response
I would add that currently, the tool supports some integrations, but we would expect it to support broader integration with other security tools, observability, or any other cloud integrations. One area Axonius can be improved is its integration process, as it is not straightforward; there is a lot involved in cloning the instance and other hard changes that I expect to be fully automated, suggesting an agentless method instead of utilizing agents, which feels somewhat legacy but could be improved. The user interface needs improvement because it is a bit laggy sometimes, making it not straightforward when we want to identify things quickly, leading us to go in different directions which could be better tied together in one place.
RB
Cybersecurity Director at RB Consultancy
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."
"Overall, I would rate Axonius an eight out of ten."
"With this solution in place, we are now 100% compliant along with security functions or operations area management."
"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 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 automation capabilities in Axonius have streamlined our security operations."
"The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
 

Cons

"For us, the product's deployment phase was a little challenging because we had to deal with other departments and business units."
"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."
"We can have fetch cycle issues."
"One area Axonius can be improved is its integration process, as it is not straightforward; there is a lot involved in cloning the instance and other hard changes that I expect to be fully automated, suggesting an agentless method instead of utilizing agents, which feels somewhat legacy but could be improved."
"Adding more detailed descriptions or YouTube videos about specific features would help improve the application."
"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 could improve by increasing their integrations with more technology vendors."
"Axonius can improve on delivering compliance-related features."
"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are on a subscription model with them."
"Axonius is quite a bit cheaper compared to other solutions."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Retailer
16%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Axonius?
I think I am good so far with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing; I do not see any disturbances there, but it is working well.
What needs improvement with Axonius?
I would add that currently, the tool supports some integrations, but we would expect it to support broader integration with other security tools, observability, or any other cloud integrations. One...
What is your primary use case for Axonius?
My main use case for Axonius is config management and asset inventory. I use Axonius to maintain the asset inventory up to date and also to identify the owners quickly; these are the primary requir...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Extreme Engineering Solutions, AppsFlyer, Landmark Health, Natera
Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Armis, Axonius, Qualys and others in Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM). Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.