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

Pentera 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

Pentera
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Penetration Testing Services (2nd), Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (1st)
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset ...
Average Rating
9.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (10th), Patch Management (7th), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (2nd), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (4th), Software Supply Chain Security (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Pentera and Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Pentera is designed for Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) and holds a mindshare of 30.4%, up 27.2% compared to last year.
Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management, on the other hand, focuses on Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM), holds 6.7% mindshare, up 2.2% since last year.
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM)
 

Featured Reviews

Richard Marlow - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides good features and helps monitor the status of ransomware protection in an organization
The tool is quite scalable. There's a one-to-one relationship between the engine and how many scans we can do. We can only do one scan with one engine. We had some issues around the password assessments because we added a lot of users. It took a long time. I rate the scalability a seven out of ten. We have three users in our organization.
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

"Maybe there are some remediation steps on the website, we can mask sensitive information on the website better."
"Pentera has many authentic features."
"The solution is SaaS-based. From a cloud perspective, it has Pentera Surface and Pentera Core. The Core is the on-prem deployed solution, while the Surface is the cloud-hosted solution that scans your public infrastructure. From the Surface perspective, the most valuable feature so far has been the attack surface mapping."
"The most valuable feature of Pentera is that you can do continuous vulnerability assessment, which is automated."
"What I like the most about Pentera is its solution-oriented approach."
"The product is easy to use."
"The tool showed us that our ransomware protection wasn’t working on some machines."
"Pentera has many authentic features."
"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."
"The scanning results are pretty good, and some insights are quite valuable."
"It provides most of the information needed regarding the assets, including the operating system and whether the assets are network devices or servers."
"Our favorite features are the tagging and the ability to quickly find assets in the portal."
"I would rate Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management ten out of ten."
"I recommend Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management due to its superior asset information collection capabilities, including comprehensive hardware and software inventorying."
"Qualys CSAM helps find all the assets. It categorizes information based on various criteria such as host and tenant version. It provides in-depth visibility into both hardware and software."
 

Cons

"One area for product improvement could be the inclusion of a dashboard to cover multiple branches and subsidiaries, allowing for centralized monitoring."
"One of the big issues we have is that the tool has an additional license for compromised credentials. Suppose compromised credentials for any of your domains appear in leaks, dumps, or are being sold. In that case, they try to aggregate that data and highlight that, for example, ten users appeared in recent dumps as compromised credentials. However, they don't provide much information about where those compromises came from or their source information, probably to protect their sources."
"There is room for improvement in virtualization compatibility."
"The vulnerability scanner, exploit achievements, and remediation actions are all great."
"The licensing and IP management need improvement."
"Pentera's general dashboards could be improved and made more specific in terms of vulnerabilities that I'm discovering."
"The automated penetration testing features must be improved."
"The price could be improved."
"The UI needs improvement as it can become overwhelming after prolonged use."
"There can be further simplification to reduce the overall noise and provide ESAM-related data."
"Qualys could improve by enhancing its dynamic tagging and role-based access control features, and by refining its user interface for a more intuitive and efficient user experience."
"Qualys CSAM is not super responsive, and there can be delays sometimes, especially with the network passive sensor. You might see duplicate objects which eventually disappear but it takes time. If that can be done faster, it will be great."
"There can be further simplification to reduce the overall noise and provide ESAM-related data."
"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."
"Currently, in the EASM module, the scan frequency is limited to once daily, but allowing end users control over scan scheduling would be advantageous."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We have to pay a yearly licensing cost for Pentera."
"The product's cost is reasonable. I rate the pricing a three out of ten."
"The tool is relatively cheap."
"It's not that expensive, but it could be more cost-effective."
"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."
"The cost for Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management is high."
"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 is market-competitive."
"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."
"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 Qualys Cybersecurity Asset Management pricing is well-aligned with our usage."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Educational Organization
6%
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Government
9%
Retailer
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Pentera?
What I like the most about Pentera is its solution-oriented approach.
What needs improvement with Pentera?
The licensing and IP management need improvement. When the IP is imported into a system, we cannot withdraw or revoke the license.
What is your primary use case for Pentera?
I am using the OpenIntra solution for pentesting and managing candidates in my environment. I also use this solution for house customers.
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, centralized inventory, making it a cost-effective solution.
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

 

Sample Customers

Blackstone Group Caterpillar Apria Healthcare Taylor Vinters Sandler Capital Management Drawbridge BNP Paribas British Red Cross
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Pentera vs. Qualys CyberSecurity Asset Management and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.