HEAD TO HEAD · SCORED SEPTEMBER 2026 · CROWDSTRIKE EASM ADDED 13 OCTOBER 2026
Hadrian vs Microsoft Defender EASM: attack surface management compared
Quick answer
Hadrian scores 7.10 to Microsoft Defender EASM's 6.00 on our weights, a gap of 1.10. Hadrian leads on exploitability validation and remediation; Microsoft Defender EASM leads on integrations, time to value and pricing transparency. They tie on discovery and attribution.
Scored September 2026 · CrowdStrike EASM added 13 October 2026 · Drawn from vendor product pages, docs and public pricing
How do Hadrian and Microsoft Defender EASM compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | Hadrian | Microsoft Defender EASM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries | 20% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
| Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling | 15% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
| Exploitability validation | 15% | 9 | 3 | Hadrian |
| Remediation and mitigation support | 20% | 7 | 4 | Hadrian |
| Integrations and platform reach | 10% | 6 | 8 | Microsoft Defender EASM |
| Time to value | 10% | 7 | 8 | Microsoft Defender EASM |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | 6 | 7 | Microsoft Defender EASM |
Hadrian leads on 2 criteria, Microsoft Defender EASM on 3, 2 tied. Weighted: Hadrian 7.10, Microsoft Defender EASM 6.00.
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
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?
Hadrian wins on
Exploitability validation: 9 vs 3
Agentic AI simulates attacks and, by Hadrian's account, proves exploitability within 15 minutes.
Remediation and mitigation support: 7 vs 4
Actionable remediation guidance, automatic ticket creation and automatic regression testing after fixes; no edge mitigation documented.
Microsoft Defender EASM wins on
Integrations and platform reach: 8 vs 6
Data connectors to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer and a Security Copilot integration in preview; no cross-tenant resource access.
Time to value: 8 vs 7
30-day free trial on the first resource, plus the prebuilt inventory.
Pricing transparency: 7 vs 6
Self-serve Azure billing against a published definition of billable assets (approved hosts, domains and IP addresses) after the trial.
Tied: Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries (7), Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling (7).
How do Hadrian and Microsoft Defender EASM price?
| Item | Hadrian | Microsoft Defender EASM |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. | 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 | Azure resource (SaaS) |
| Pricing transparency score | 6 | 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 Hadrian or Microsoft Defender 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 want help closing exposures, not only a longer list of them. Hadrian scores 7 on remediation: Actionable remediation guidance, automatic ticket creation and automatic regression testing after fixes; no edge mitigation documented.
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 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 Microsoft Defender EASM?
On our weights Hadrian scores higher, 7.10 to 6.00. Hadrian leads on 2 criteria and Microsoft Defender EASM on 3 criteria, 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 Microsoft Defender EASM cost?
Hadrian: NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. 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?
Hadrian scores 7 on remediation and mitigation support against 4 for Microsoft Defender 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, Overview, What is discovery, Billable assets, Data connections, Pricing · Reviewed September 2026