HEAD TO HEAD · SCORED SEPTEMBER 2026 · CROWDSTRIKE EASM ADDED 13 OCTOBER 2026
IONIX vs CyCognito: which ASM tool helps you remediate?
Quick answer
IONIX edges CyCognito 7.70 to 7.60. They tie on discovery, attribution, validation and integrations. IONIX wins remediation (9 vs 7) because it can apply WAF rules and claim hijackable assets; CyCognito wins time to value (9 vs 8) and pricing transparency (4 vs 2).
Scored September 2026 · CrowdStrike EASM added 13 October 2026 · Drawn from vendor product pages, docs and public pricing
Rank 1 of 10
Best for multi-subsidiary enterprises that want mitigation, not just a list
How do IONIX and CyCognito compare on each criterion?
| Criterion | Weight | IONIX | CyCognito | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries | 20% | 9 | 9 | Tie |
| Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling | 15% | 8 | 8 | Tie |
| Exploitability validation | 15% | 8 | 8 | Tie |
| Remediation and mitigation support | 20% | 9 | 7 | IONIX |
| Integrations and platform reach | 10% | 7 | 7 | Tie |
| Time to value | 10% | 8 | 9 | CyCognito |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | 2 | 4 | CyCognito |
IONIX leads on 1 criterion, CyCognito on 2, 4 tied. Weighted: IONIX 7.70, CyCognito 7.60.
What does a finding arrive with in each?
IONIX
- Owner or subsidiary attributedDocumented
- Exploitability provenDocumented
- Ticket or workflow createdDocumented
- Compensating control appliedDocumented
- Fix retestedNot documented
CyCognito
- Owner or subsidiary attributedDocumented
- Exploitability provenDocumented
- Ticket or workflow createdDocumented
- Compensating control appliedNot documented
- Fix retestedDocumented
Where does each one win?
IONIX wins on
Remediation and mitigation support: 9 vs 7
Turns new CVEs into deployable WAF rules for virtual patching, and its Active Protection claims hijackable domains and cloud buckets on the customer's behalf.
CyCognito wins on
Time to value: 9 vs 8
The organization's name is the only required input.
Pricing transparency: 4 vs 2
Publishes its pricing basis (total asset volume for ASM; active IPs and web applications for exposure validation) and a quote form with a stated 24-hour average response; no list price.
Tied: Discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries (9), Attribution accuracy and false-positive handling (8), Exploitability validation (8), Integrations and platform reach (7).
How do IONIX and CyCognito price?
| Item | IONIX | CyCognito |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Not published. Contact sales. | Quote-based. Pricing basis published: total asset volume (ASM); active IPs and web applications (exposure validation). |
| Deployment | SaaS (customer portal at portal.ionix.io); agentless external discovery | SaaS; unauthenticated black-box external testing |
| Pricing transparency score | 2 | 4 |
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 IONIX or CyCognito?
Choose IONIX if
- You want help closing exposures, not only a longer list of them. IONIX scores 9 on remediation: Turns new CVEs into deployable WAF rules for virtual patching, and its Active Protection claims hijackable domains and cloud buckets on the customer's behalf.
- Finding unknown assets, subsidiaries and acquired infrastructure is your main gap. IONIX scores 9 on discovery: Its Connective Intelligence engine recursively maps internet-facing assets, including shadow IT, subsidiaries and third- and fourth-party assets in the digital supply chain.
Choose CyCognito if
- You want results with the least setup. CyCognito scores 9 on time to value: The organization's name is the only required input.
- 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.
On our default weights IONIX comes out ahead. Change the weights in the score calculator to see whether that holds for your priorities.
Which one finds more of a multi-subsidiary estate?
Both are built for it and both score 9. CyCognito starts from the organization's name and attributes each asset to a subsidiary, brand or business unit, with a trace of why it belongs. IONIX maps assets recursively through its Connective Intelligence engine, attributes them to subsidiaries or business owners and extends into third- and fourth-party supply-chain assets. Each vendor claims to find more than competitors (IONIX '30%-50% more assets', CyCognito 'up to 20x more exposures'); only a side-by-side proof of concept on your own estate settles that.
Which one helps close exposures faster?
This is where they differ. CyCognito documents step-by-step guidance, owner-linked tickets and a retest once you fix. IONIX documents mitigation it can apply before the fix: WAF rules for virtual patching, which it says it can produce within 12 hours of CVE publication, and Active Protection, which claims expired domains, abandoned buckets and exposed nameservers on your behalf. If your applications cannot be taken down for patching, the IONIX approach shortens the exposure window; if your teams patch quickly and want proof the fix worked, CyCognito's retest is the more useful feature.
Which one is easier to buy?
CyCognito. It publishes its pricing basis (total asset volume) and a stated 24-hour quote response, and needs only a company name to start. IONIX publishes no pricing information.
Frequently asked questions
Is IONIX better than CyCognito?
On our weights, narrowly: 7.70 vs 7.60. The gap comes from remediation, where IONIX documents WAF-based mitigation and CyCognito does not.
Which is better for M&A-heavy enterprises?
Both score 9 on discovery of unknown assets and subsidiaries. Choose on what happens next: mitigation (IONIX) or retest-verified guidance (CyCognito).
Do both validate exploitability?
Yes. IONIX uses non-intrusive exploit simulations; CyCognito runs more than 100,000 unauthenticated black-box tests. Both score 8.
Sources: ionix.io, Attack surface discovery, Exposure validation, Control subsidiary risk, WAF posture management, Active Protection, Why IONIX, cycognito.com, Discovery, Active security testing, Remediation acceleration, Pricing · Reviewed September 2026