HEAD TO HEAD · SCORED SEPTEMBER 2026 · CROWDSTRIKE EASM ADDED 13 OCTOBER 2026
Hadrian vs CrowdStrike EASM: attack surface management compared
Quick answer
Hadrian scores 7.10 to CrowdStrike EASM's 5.90 on our weights, a gap of 1.20. Hadrian leads on attribution, exploitability validation, remediation and pricing transparency; CrowdStrike EASM leads on integrations. They tie on discovery and time to value.
Scored September 2026 · CrowdStrike EASM added 13 October 2026 · Drawn from vendor product pages, docs and public pricing
How do Hadrian and CrowdStrike EASM compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | Hadrian | CrowdStrike EASM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries | 20% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
| Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling | 15% | 7 | 5 | Hadrian |
| Exploitability validation | 15% | 9 | 5 | Hadrian |
| Remediation and mitigation support | 20% | 7 | 6 | Hadrian |
| Integrations and platform reach | 10% | 6 | 8 | CrowdStrike EASM |
| Time to value | 10% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | 6 | 3 | Hadrian |
Hadrian leads on 4 criteria, CrowdStrike EASM on 1, 2 tied. Weighted: Hadrian 7.10, CrowdStrike EASM 5.90.
What does a finding arrive with in each?
Hadrian
- Owner or subsidiary attributedPartial
- Exploitability provenDocumented
- Ticket or workflow createdDocumented
- Compensating control appliedNot documented
- Fix retestedDocumented
CrowdStrike EASM
- Owner or subsidiary attributedNot documented
- Exploitability provenPartial
- Ticket or workflow createdDocumented
- Compensating control appliedPartial
- Fix retestedNot documented
Where does each one win?
Hadrian wins on
Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling: 7 vs 5
Uses machine learning trained by ethical hackers to confirm asset ownership.
Exploitability validation: 9 vs 5
Agentic AI simulates attacks and, by Hadrian's account, proves exploitability within 15 minutes.
Remediation and mitigation support: 7 vs 6
Actionable remediation guidance, automatic ticket creation and automatic regression testing after fixes; no edge mitigation documented.
Pricing transparency: 6 vs 3
Publishes a price for NOVA agentic penetration tests (from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available); ATLAS is priced by total asset count on request.
CrowdStrike EASM wins on
Integrations and platform reach: 8 vs 6
Sits in the CrowdStrike Falcon platform beside threat intelligence, IT hygiene and vulnerability management across endpoints, cloud, network and OT/IoT; ServiceNow and Jira are the named integrations.
Tied: Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries (7), Time to value (7).
How do Hadrian and CrowdStrike EASM price?
| Item | Hadrian | CrowdStrike EASM |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. | Not published for EASM. CrowdStrike's pricing page lists endpoint bundles only (from $7.99 per device per month) and says add-ons cost extra. |
| Deployment | SaaS | SaaS, part of CrowdStrike Falcon Exposure Management |
| Pricing transparency score | 6 | 3 |
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 Hadrian or CrowdStrike EASM?
Choose Hadrian if
- You want proof that an exposure is exploitable before it reaches a ticket. Hadrian scores 9 on exploitability validation: Agentic AI simulates attacks and, by Hadrian's account, proves exploitability within 15 minutes.
- You need every asset tied to the right entity and owner, with the evidence shown. Hadrian scores 7 on attribution: Uses machine learning trained by ethical hackers to confirm asset ownership.
Choose CrowdStrike EASM if
- The tool has to fit a wider security platform or many existing tools. CrowdStrike EASM scores 8 on integrations: Sits in the CrowdStrike Falcon platform beside threat intelligence, IT hygiene and vulnerability management across endpoints, cloud, network and OT/IoT; ServiceNow and Jira are the named integrations.
- Finding unknown assets, subsidiaries and acquired infrastructure is your main gap. CrowdStrike EASM scores 7 on discovery: CrowdStrike says its internet mapping technology continuously indexes the entire internet and maps known and unknown assets, including shadow IT, 24/7; the inputs needed and subsidiary coverage are not described.
On our default weights Hadrian comes out ahead. Change the weights in the score calculator to see whether that holds for your priorities.
Frequently asked questions
Is Hadrian better than CrowdStrike EASM?
On our weights Hadrian scores higher, 7.10 to 5.90. Hadrian leads on 4 criteria and CrowdStrike EASM on 1 criterion, with 2 tied. The better choice depends on which criteria matter most to you; the score calculator lets you change the weights.
What do Hadrian and CrowdStrike EASM cost?
Hadrian: NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. CrowdStrike EASM: Not published for EASM. CrowdStrike's pricing page lists endpoint bundles only (from $7.99 per device per month) and says add-ons cost extra.
Which one does more to help fix exposures?
Hadrian scores 7 on remediation and mitigation support against 6 for CrowdStrike EASM. Hadrian: Actionable remediation guidance, automatic ticket creation and automatic regression testing after fixes; no edge mitigation documented.
Sources: hadrian.io, Platform, Technology, Integrations, Pricing, CrowdStrike EASM, Falcon Exposure Management, Falcon Exposure Management data sheet (PDF), Pricing · Reviewed September 2026