HEAD TO HEAD · SCORED SEPTEMBER 2026 · CROWDSTRIKE EASM ADDED 13 OCTOBER 2026
CyCognito vs Microsoft Defender EASM: attack surface management compared
Quick answer
CyCognito scores 7.60 to Microsoft Defender EASM's 6.00 on our weights, a gap of 1.60. CyCognito leads on discovery, attribution, exploitability validation, remediation and time to value; Microsoft Defender EASM leads on integrations and pricing transparency.
Scored September 2026 · CrowdStrike EASM added 13 October 2026 · Drawn from vendor product pages, docs and public pricing
How do CyCognito and Microsoft Defender EASM compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | CyCognito | Microsoft Defender EASM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries | 20% | 9 | 7 | CyCognito |
| Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling | 15% | 8 | 7 | CyCognito |
| Exploitability validation | 15% | 8 | 3 | CyCognito |
| Remediation and mitigation support | 20% | 7 | 4 | CyCognito |
| Integrations and platform reach | 10% | 7 | 8 | Microsoft Defender EASM |
| Time to value | 10% | 9 | 8 | CyCognito |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | 4 | 7 | Microsoft Defender EASM |
CyCognito leads on 5 criteria, Microsoft Defender EASM on 2, 0 tied. Weighted: CyCognito 7.60, Microsoft Defender EASM 6.00.
What does a finding arrive with in each?
CyCognito
- Owner or subsidiary attributedDocumented
- Exploitability provenDocumented
- Ticket or workflow createdDocumented
- Compensating control appliedNot documented
- Fix retestedDocumented
Microsoft Defender EASM
- Owner or subsidiary attributedPartial
- Exploitability provenNot documented
- Ticket or workflow createdPartial
- Compensating control appliedNot documented
- Fix retestedNot documented
Where does each one win?
CyCognito wins on
Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries: 9 vs 7
Starts from the organization's name with no IP ranges or asset lists and covers subsidiaries, acquired-company infrastructure and third-party-connected systems.
Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling: 8 vs 7
Every finding carries a trace of how it was found, why it belongs to the organization and who owns it.
Exploitability validation: 8 vs 3
Runs more than 100,000 unauthenticated black-box security tests across more than 30 exposure categories, designed not to disrupt production.
Remediation and mitigation support: 7 vs 4
Step-by-step guidance per issue, owner-linked workflows and a retest after each fix; no automated mitigation is documented.
Time to value: 9 vs 8
The organization's name is the only required input.
Microsoft Defender EASM wins on
Integrations and platform reach: 8 vs 7
Data connectors to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer and a Security Copilot integration in preview; no cross-tenant resource access.
Pricing transparency: 7 vs 4
Self-serve Azure billing against a published definition of billable assets (approved hosts, domains and IP addresses) after the trial.
How do CyCognito and Microsoft Defender EASM price?
| Item | CyCognito | Microsoft Defender EASM |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Quote-based. Pricing basis published: total asset volume (ASM); active IPs and web applications (exposure validation). | Billed through Azure on billable assets (approved host:IP combinations, domains and IP addresses) after a 30-day free trial. See Microsoft's pricing page for the current rate. |
| Deployment | SaaS; unauthenticated black-box external testing | Azure resource (SaaS) |
| Pricing transparency score | 4 | 7 |
Prices and pricing bases as published by each vendor and reviewed in September 2026. 'Not published' means we did not find it on the vendor's public pages.
Should you choose CyCognito or Microsoft Defender EASM?
Choose CyCognito if
- Finding unknown assets, subsidiaries and acquired infrastructure is your main gap. CyCognito scores 9 on discovery: Starts from the organization's name with no IP ranges or asset lists and covers subsidiaries, acquired-company infrastructure and third-party-connected systems.
- You want results with the least setup. CyCognito scores 9 on time to value: The organization's name is the only required input.
Choose Microsoft Defender EASM if
- The tool has to fit a wider security platform or many existing tools. Microsoft Defender EASM scores 8 on integrations: Data connectors to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer and a Security Copilot integration in preview; no cross-tenant resource access.
- You want results with the least setup. Microsoft Defender EASM scores 8 on time to value: 30-day free trial on the first resource, plus the prebuilt inventory.
On our default weights CyCognito comes out ahead. Change the weights in the score calculator to see whether that holds for your priorities.
Frequently asked questions
Is CyCognito better than Microsoft Defender EASM?
On our weights CyCognito scores higher, 7.60 to 6.00. CyCognito leads on 5 criteria and Microsoft Defender EASM on 2 criteria, with 0 tied. The better choice depends on which criteria matter most to you; the score calculator lets you change the weights.
What do CyCognito and Microsoft Defender EASM cost?
CyCognito: Quote-based. Pricing basis published: total asset volume (ASM); active IPs and web applications (exposure validation). Microsoft Defender EASM: Billed through Azure on billable assets (approved host:IP combinations, domains and IP addresses) after a 30-day free trial. See Microsoft's pricing page for the current rate.
Which one does more to help fix exposures?
CyCognito scores 7 on remediation and mitigation support against 4 for Microsoft Defender EASM. CyCognito: Step-by-step guidance per issue, owner-linked workflows and a retest after each fix; no automated mitigation is documented.
Sources: cycognito.com, Discovery, Active security testing, Remediation acceleration, Pricing, Overview, What is discovery, Billable assets, Data connections, Pricing · Reviewed September 2026