Skip to content
Exposure Management FinderExposure Finder

FINDER · SIX QUESTIONS

Exposure management finder: which kind of ASM tool fits your problem?

SHORT ANSWER

Answer six questions and the finder weighs five tool types (EASM discovery, exposure validation, exposure management platforms, CTEM programme support and WAF posture), plots the shape of your answers, then checks each vendor's published facts against them. Every rule is written out on How we map. The page opens with an example team's answers; change any answer to see your own result.

01 / 06How is your organisation put together?

Think about who owns internet-facing assets, not the org chart.

02 / 06Where do your internet-facing systems run?

Pick the closest description.

03 / 06Which security platform or scanner do you already run?

Pick the one you would most like to build on.

04 / 06How much proof do you need that an exposure is real?

Proof costs more but cuts the list you have to work through.

05 / 06What sits in front of your web applications?

Web application firewalls (WAFs) and CDN edge protection count.

06 / 06How much capacity does your team have to fix things?

Be honest; it decides whether you need help acting on findings.

Your answers point to Exposure validation

Your shape: Exposure validation 6 pts, CTEM programme support 6 pts, EASM discovery 4 pts, Exposure management platforms 2 pts, WAF posture 2 pts.EASMDiscoveryVALProofPLATPlatformCTEMProgrammeWAFEdge
  • Outer point: described on the vendor's pages we read
  • Inner point: not in our sources (it may exist; we did not find it)
  • Amber outline: the shape of your answers
The shape shows what each vendor's own pages describe, or how your answers weigh the five tool types. It is not a measure of how well a product works.
  • EASMpicked for your answersDiscovery4 pts
  • VALpicked for your answersProof6 pts
  • PLATPlatform2 pts
  • CTEMpicked for your answersProgramme6 pts
  • WAFEdge2 pts

Start here

  • Exposure validation 6 pts+2 another vendor's scanner · +3 safe exploitability checks · +1 a growing backlog

Also relevant

  • CTEM programme support 6 pts+1 several brands or business units · +1 another vendor's scanner · +1 safe exploitability checks · +3 a growing backlog
  • EASM discovery 4 pts+3 several brands or business units · +1 mixed cloud and on-premises hosting

Lower on your list or not suggested

  • Exposure management platforms 2 pts+2 mixed cloud and on-premises hosting
  • WAF posture 2 pts+2 one WAF or CDN vendor

Vendors whose published facts match

Ordered by how many of your checks each vendor's own pages satisfy. Equal fits are listed alphabetically. This is a fit to your answers, not a quality ranking.

  1. Equal fit

    IONIXEqual fitMatches 4 checks fully, 0 partly, 1 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Matches

      Describes agentic corporate, subsidiary and brand discovery and attributes each asset to a subsidiary or business owner, including assets that arrive through M&A.

      Source: IONIX homepage (re-read) · Read 11 Oct 2026

    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Matches

      Non-intrusive exploit simulations.

      Source: IONIX exposure validation · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Works through your WAF or edge Matches

      Delivers WAF rules for new CVEs into remediation workflows.

      Source: IONIX WAF Posture Management · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Matches

      Integrations with Jira, ServiceNow, Slack, Splunk and Cortex XSOAR.

      Source: IONIX exposure validation · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Read the IONIX vendor note
    IONIX shape: described for 5 of 5 tool types.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
    watchTowrEqual fitMatches 4 checks fully, 0 partly, 1 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Matches

      Maps assets to subsidiaries, brands and M&A.

      Source: watchTowr platform · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Matches

      Automated red teaming confirms which exposures are exploitable.

      Source: watchTowr platform · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Works through your WAF or edge Matches

      Active Defense sends rules to Cloudflare, Akamai, Imperva, F5, Fortinet, Check Point and Citrix.

      Source: watchTowr platform · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Matches

      Ticketing and workflow with Atlassian, ServiceNow, Freshworks, Ivanti, Linear, PagerDuty, Torq and Zendesk.

      Source: watchTowr platform · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Read the watchTowr vendor note
    watchTowr shape: described for 5 of 5 tool types.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  2. CyCognitoMatches 3 checks fully, 0 partly, 2 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Matches

      Every finding carries a trace of how it was found and why it belongs to the subsidiary, brand or business unit.

      Source: CyCognito discovery · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Matches

      Active black-box tests with no brute force or state changes.

      Source: CyCognito active security testing · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Works through your WAF or edge Not in our sources
    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Matches

      Owner-linked workflows with ServiceNow, Jira, Splunk and Zendesk.

      Source: CyCognito remediation acceleration · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Read the CyCognito vendor note
    CyCognito shape: described for 5 of 5 tool types.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  3. HadrianMatches 2 checks fully, 1 partly, 2 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Partly

      Hadrian lists a mergers and acquisitions assessment add-on for Atlas; ownership is confirmed by machine learning.

      Source: Hadrian pricing (re-read) · Read 13 Oct 2026

    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Matches

      Proves exploitability with agentic testing.

      Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Works through your WAF or edge Not in our sources
    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Matches

      Automatic ticket creation, with Jira, ServiceNow, GLPI, Slack, Microsoft Teams, SentinelOne, Datadog and Zendesk.

      Source: Hadrian integrations · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Read the Hadrian vendor note
    Hadrian shape: described for 4 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 1.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  4. Equal fit

    Rapid7 Surface CommandEqual fitMatches 1 checks fully, 2 partly, 2 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    Rapid7 Surface Command shape: described for 4 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 1.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
    Tenable Attack Surface ManagementEqual fitMatches 1 checks fully, 2 partly, 2 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Not in our sources
    • Internal as well as external assets Matches

      Tenable One includes vulnerability management alongside external attack surface data.

      Source: Tenable: buy · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Exploitability checked Partly

      Attack path analysis across 150+ techniques in Tenable One, not exploit testing.

      Source: Tenable One · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Works through your WAF or edge Not in our sources
    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Partly

      Tenable One Advanced lists orchestrated remediation through manual or automated ticketing workflows.

      Source: Tenable One pricing · Read 11 Oct 2026

    • Read the Tenable Attack Surface Management vendor note
    Tenable Attack Surface Management shape: described for 4 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 1.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  5. Censys ASMMatches 1 checks fully, 1 partly, 3 not in our sourcesDescribes 3 of 3 picked tool types
    Censys ASM shape: described for 3 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 2.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  6. Cortex XpanseMatches 1 checks fully, 1 partly, 3 not in our sourcesDescribes 2 of 3 picked tool types
    Cortex Xpanse shape: described for 3 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 2.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  7. Microsoft Defender EASMMatches 0 checks fully, 2 partly, 3 not in our sourcesDescribes 2 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Partly

      Every asset carries a state (Approved Inventory, Dependency, Monitor Only, Candidate, Requires Investigation) based on connection strength and confidence; cross-tenant access is not supported.

      Source: Microsoft Learn: what is discovery · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Not in our sources
    • Works through your WAF or edge Not in our sources
    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Partly

      Data connectors to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer trigger remediation actions downstream.

      Source: Microsoft Learn: data connections · Read 27 Sep 2026

    • Read the Microsoft Defender EASM vendor note
    Microsoft Defender EASM shape: described for 2 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 3.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF
  8. CrowdStrike EASMMatches 0 checks fully, 0 partly, 5 not in our sourcesDescribes 2 of 3 picked tool types
    • Subsidiary and owner attribution Not in our sources
    • Internal as well as external assets Not in our sources
    • Exploitability checked Not in our sources
    • Works through your WAF or edge Not in our sources
    • Routes findings to owners and tickets Not in our sources
    • Read the CrowdStrike EASM vendor note
    CrowdStrike EASM shape: described for 3 of 5 tool types, not in our sources for 2.EASMVALPLATCTEMWAF

How does the finder decide?

Two steps. First, each answer adds points to the tool types it makes more relevant; the highest becomes your starting type and the amber shape shows the balance. Second, each vendor gets points for describing your picked tool types and for matching your constraints. The full rule table is on How we map. A vendor marked Not in our sources may still offer something; we did not find it on the pages we read, so ask the vendor.

How we map

Questions readers ask

Why does the finder point me to CTEM programme support?

Because your answers about a growing backlog, subsidiaries or several WAF vendors add up to a coordination problem as much as a tooling one. CTEM programme support means tools that cover discovery, prioritisation, validation and getting fixes done in one cycle.

Why are some vendors shown as an equal fit?

Their published facts satisfy your checks to the same degree. We list equal fits alphabetically rather than invent a tiebreak.

What does Not in our sources mean?

We did not find that capability or fact on the vendor pages we read in September 2026 and updated on 11 October 2026. It may exist; it counts zero in the finder, not a penalty, and the vendor notes say so.

Does the finder store my answers?

No. Answers live in the page's address bar so you can share a result. Nothing is sent anywhere.