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 Nov 2, 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
18th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (3rd)
IBM Guardium Vulnerability ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
48th
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (4th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (3rd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (2nd), Software Supply Chain Security (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 1.1%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is 0.7%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is 1.3%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management1.3%
Zafran Security1.1%
IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment0.7%
Other96.9%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Reviewer6233 - PeerSpot reviewer
Works at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
Has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal
While Zafran Security is already a powerful tool, there are areas where it could be further improved to provide even greater value. One key area for enhancement is the searching capabilities within its vulnerabilities module. By incorporating the ability to create Boolean searches, users would gain the ability to apply more complex filters and customize their search criteria. This would greatly enhance the precision and efficiency with which security teams can identify and prioritize vulnerabilities. Having such tailored search capabilities would save time and resources by narrowing down vast lists of vulnerabilities to those that meet specific parameters relevant to our unique risk environment. Additionally, integrating more robust reporting and visualization tools would be advantageous. Enhanced dashboards that offer customizable visual representations of risk configurations and threat landscapes would facilitate better communication with stakeholders, making it easier to explain vulnerabilities and the rationale behind certain security measures. This would also aid in demonstrating the improvements and value derived from existing security investments to leadership and non-technical team members.
SL
Guardium Administrator at Interactive Group
Improvements sought in database optimization while benefiting from robust security monitoring
We use the analytical functionality of Guardium, but the analytical functionality is not so powerful or flexible because it does not include the application user ID. It only includes the database user ID. To identify risky users, it does not support end users, so IBM must incorporate this feature into the built-in analytical engine of the Guardium. There is only one problem I experienced while using Guardium: the internal database of the collector is MySQL, which is not so powerful or flexible. When you make a query in a MySQL database, it takes too much time to respond. IBM should replace this MySQL database with a more powerful internal database for the logging mechanism so that Guardium can collect logging data flexibly and ensure optimization. My overall experience with Guardium is good. The only problem is that IBM must replace the internal DB, MySQL, with a more powerful enterprise-level database because enterprises use it at an enterprise level, and MySQL does not support optimally.
AN
Cyber Security Specialist at UBS Financial
Customized dashboards and quick deployment support comprehensive asset management
We use the True Risk Score for vulnerability prioritization, though we do not solely rely upon it since some assets may be decommissioned soon or not in use. From Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, we primarily focus on internet-facing assets. We have created separate tasks for internet-facing assets and track the True Risk dashboard specifically for these assets. If the True Risk Score is higher for any internet-facing assets, then we take action accordingly. The True Risk Score is very helpful for prioritization. The initial setup was straightforward and easy. We needed to create customized tags, group them twice, and validate whether the operating system detection was true positive or false positive. We encountered some false positives, which required coordination with the IT team for verification. In six months, we had approximately 20-25 machines that needed verification on a weekly basis. We coordinated with the IT team to identify the exact operating system specifications.

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 saw benefits from Zafran Security almost immediately after deploying it."
"Overall, we have seen about eighty-seven percent reduction of the number of vulnerabilities that require urgency to remediate, specifically the number of criticals."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"With Zafran Security, it integrates with your security controls, allowing you to take that risk score and reduce it based on the controls in place or increase the risk based on different factors, such as if the issue is internet reachable or if there's an exploit in the wild."
"The Vulnerability Assessment feature is quite stable and helps identify numerous vulnerabilities in databases."
"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 reporting features are good and there are many built-in reports that can be quickly configured."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides a simple English recommendation on actions that you need to take once a vulnerability is discovered."
"We have had zero attacks since we enabled all the features in Qualys CSAM."
"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."
"There are no stability issues, and I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"The integration with different third-party tools, such as cloud providers like Azure and AWS, and asset management tools like CMDB systems, is valuable."
"I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management ten 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 use it primarily with tagging, asset counts, and groups that we can put them in, and we also use it to tell if a device has been merged and seen in Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, so that's beneficial for us too."
"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."
 

Cons

"The dashboarding and reporting functionality of Zafran Security is an area that definitely could use some improvements."
"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."
"I think the ability to have some enhanced reporting capabilities is something they can improve on, as they have good reports but we have asked for some specific reporting enhancements."
"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."
"There is only one problem I experienced while using Guardium: the internal database of the collector is MySQL, which is not so powerful or flexible."
"I think the one thing Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can do better is the package management and the updating process."
"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."
"The only minor issue is occasionally being redirected to multiple teams, causing slight delays."
"One downside of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is that I would prefer to see a more interactive dashboard."
"From the user experience perspective, we need a simpler interface and reduced complexity in certain features, particularly with the Qualys Query Language."
"Integration of Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, particularly with ServiceNow, takes a very long time, and it needs prioritization of patch rules based on vulnerability risk."
"Further research and development are needed to enhance integration with other cloud agents and products, particularly improving communication with external products and vendors."
"We've received very poor guidance from them, especially after learning several things we need to fix during the Qualys conference."
 

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."
"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."
"It is cost-effective because, in a single tool, we are getting everything. All the solutions come in a single license or price."
"The pricing for Qualys CSAM is nominal."
"Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can be expensive, especially if we already have VMDR."
"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."
"The pricing is reasonable relative to the features provided, as it collects all module data and operates as a main, centralized inventory, making it a cost-effective solution."
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
"The pricing for Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management is reasonable, with an annual subscription costing around $1,000 per year or a monthly subscription starting at approximately $72 per month, depending on the specific package and features included."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
37%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Performing Arts
6%
Insurance Company
6%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
Since we stood Zafran Security up in our private cloud, we handle the maintenance on our side. As we opted not to use...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
In terms of areas for improvement, Zafran Security is doing a really great job as a new and emerging company. Oftenti...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
My use cases for Zafran Security revolve around two primary areas. One is around vulnerability management and priorit...
What needs improvement with IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment?
We use the analytical functionality of Guardium, but the analytical functionality is not so powerful or flexible beca...
What is your primary use case for IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment?
We are still using IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment. We only use IBM Guardium Data Protection and monitoring, da...
What advice do you have for others considering IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment?
We do not use IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment for data encryption or any other tool for analytics, or identity ...
What needs improvement with Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
I think the one thing Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management can do better is the package management and the updating ...
What is your primary use case for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management?
I primarily use it for a small, single-site, multi-source setup with multi-WAN inputs. I have a main fiber connection...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.