We performed a comparison between SafeBreach and XM Cyber based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is the huge library of hack attacks and breach methods."
"The most valuable feature is the reporting database and attack protection."
"What I personally like very much, from my experience, is that it is very reliable."
"The platform's most valuable feature is attack simulation."
"I would like to see some integration on the customization and customer support."
"There is room for improvement in the interface. It is not always easy to find the options that you need and not everything is customizable."
"We'd like to see a cheaper price."
"XM Cyber could identify all areas of vulnerability. They could expand the identification span for different areas."
SafeBreach is ranked 6th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews while XM Cyber is ranked 5th in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) with 2 reviews. SafeBreach is rated 8.0, while XM Cyber is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of SafeBreach writes "Breach and attach simulation solution used to test security tools with a valuable library of hacking data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of XM Cyber writes "Reliable with no false-positives and helpful support". SafeBreach is most compared with Picus Security, Cymulate, Pentera, AttackIQ and Verodin, whereas XM Cyber is most compared with Pentera, Cymulate, Picus Security, Tenable Security Center and Qualys VMDR. See our SafeBreach vs. XM Cyber report.
See our list of best Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) vendors.
We monitor all Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.