Every security team eventually hits the same wall: nobody can say, with confidence, how many assets the organization actually has. Endpoint tools report one number, the cloud console reports another, and the spreadsheet IT keeps for insurance renewals reports a third. That gap is what cyber asset attack surface management, or CAASM, is built to close, and by September 2026 three vendors dominate the conversation around it: Axonius, JupiterOne, and Sevco Security. The category just went through its biggest shake-up yet. Arctic Wolf announced on February 23, 2026 that it had acquired Sevco Security for an undisclosed sum, folding Sevco’s asset intelligence engine into its Aurora Platform and effectively removing one of the three independent CAASM vendors from the market as a standalone product.
That leaves buyers with a genuinely different decision than they had a year ago. Axonius is now the best-funded independent player, closing a Series E-2 round on July 30, 2025 that pushed its post-money valuation to $2.85 billion. JupiterOne remains the smaller, graph-centric challenger built around a security knowledge graph rather than a traditional inventory table. And Sevco, the asset-truth specialist that Gartner named a Visionary in its 2025 Exposure Assessment Platforms research, is no longer something you buy on its own, it is something you get bundled into an Arctic Wolf contract. This comparison breaks down what each platform actually costs, how they differ technically, and which one fits which kind of security team heading into 2027 budget planning.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What CAASM Actually Solves (and Why It’s Not EASM or CNAPP)
CAASM gets confused with adjacent categories constantly, so it’s worth being precise. External Attack Surface Management (EASM) tools like the ones compared in our Defender EASM vs CyCognito vs Tenable ASM breakdown look at an organization from the outside in, scanning the public internet for exposed domains, certificates, and forgotten cloud buckets. Cloud-native application protection platforms, the category Wiz, Orca, and Prisma Cloud compete in, focus specifically on cloud workloads and misconfigurations. CAASM does neither of those jobs. Instead, it plugs into the tools a company already owns, EDR consoles, identity providers, cloud APIs, vulnerability scanners, MDM platforms, and reconciles what each one reports into a single, deduplicated asset record.
The practical output is a query-able inventory that answers questions no single tool can answer alone: which laptops are missing EDR coverage, which cloud instances exist in AWS but not in the CMDB, which employees have SaaS accounts nobody provisioned. That reconciliation problem is exactly what Axonius, JupiterOne, and Sevco were each built to solve, using three different architectural approaches. Axonius leans on breadth of connectors. JupiterOne leans on a graph data model. Sevco leaned on time-dimensioned tracking of when assets appear and disappear across different tools, a differentiator that made it attractive to Arctic Wolf’s security operations business specifically. Related tooling for adjacent problems, like data-focused reconciliation, is covered in our Varonis vs Cyera vs BigID DSPM comparison, and the reconnaissance side of asset discovery is covered in our Shodan OSINT attack surface guide.
The category exists because asset sprawl outran the tools built to track it. A single mid-size company can run endpoint agents from one vendor, identity from another, dozens of unsanctioned SaaS subscriptions employees signed up for with a corporate card, and cloud resources spun up and torn down faster than any manual spreadsheet could follow. The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Cybersecurity Framework lists asset management as one of the foundational functions underneath its Identify category precisely because every other control, patching, access management, incident response, depends on first knowing what exists. CAASM tools are, in effect, the commercial answer to that framework requirement: automate the asset inventory instead of running it as an annual spreadsheet exercise nobody trusts by month two.
Axonius Asset Cloud: The Connector-Density Leader
Axonius, founded in 2017 and headquartered in New York, is the category’s incumbent by most measures that matter to enterprise buyers. The company rebranded its core offering as Axonius Asset Cloud on March 20, 2025, organizing what used to be a single product into a suite: Axonius Cyber Assets, Axonius Software Assets, SaaS Applications, and a newer Axonius Identities module introduced the same day. An August 2026 update added Axonius for Healthcare, a module tuned for HIPAA-regulated device inventories, alongside early access to Axonius AI, with general availability targeted for the first half of 2026.
According to a 2026 Capterra listing, Axonius integrates with more than 40 third-party tools and platforms spanning cloud, security, endpoint, and IT operations, including AWS CloudTrail, Cisco Meraki, Datadog, GitHub, BitSight, BeyondTrust, and Cloudflare. That breadth is the platform’s core selling point and its core criticism in the same breath: a 2026 cost-driver analysis from RFP.wiki scored Axonius 4.9 out of 5 for integration capabilities, while its own G2 reviews describe the platform as expensive and complex enough to require a real learning curve. Financially, Axonius is in a different league than its two rivals. A company profile compiled in 2026 estimates the company reached roughly $200 million in annual recurring revenue by May 2026, up from about $180 million at the end of 2025, on top of a reported $594 million-plus in total funding raised since 2017.
That funding trajectory matters more than it might seem for a software buying decision. A separate 2026 brand profile from checkthat.ai notes that Axonius raised a $200 million Series E extension in March 2024 at a $2.6 billion valuation, meaning the July 2025 Series E-2 round largely held that valuation flat while adding fresh capital rather than marking a fresh markup, a pattern some analysts read as a signal of capital-efficient growth rather than hype-driven fundraising. For a security team weighing a multi-year contract, that kind of funding stability is a legitimate factor: a well-capitalized vendor with flat-but-growing valuation is less likely to face the kind of abrupt strategic pivot, or acquisition, that just happened to Sevco.
JupiterOne: The Security Knowledge Graph Approach
JupiterOne takes a fundamentally different technical path. Rather than presenting assets as inventory rows in a table, JupiterOne models every asset, user, and control as a node in a security knowledge graph, then lets teams query the relationships between them, a device connected to a user connected to a cloud account connected to a compliance control. Gartner Peer Insights lists JupiterOne’s founding year as 2020 and its headquarters as Durham, North Carolina, with the company positioning its current platform as an AI Risk Management Platform built on that graph foundation.
The most significant 2025 addition was Continuous Controls Monitoring, launched November 12, 2025, which the company describes as the industry’s first cyber asset graph solution for real-time security control validation, essentially checking continuously whether a control that’s supposed to be protecting an asset is actually attached to it rather than relying on point-in-time audits. JupiterOne has been recognized by Gartner as a Sample Vendor for CAASM technology in its Hype Cycle research, a designation it first received in the 2021 Hype Cycle for Network Security and has carried into subsequent reports. On the commercial side, JupiterOne is notably smaller than Axonius, with employee counts reported in the 70 to 85 range across multiple 2025-2026 sources, and it sells a single pricing edition with rates available strictly on request, no published per-asset figures at all.
Sevco Security: Now Part of Arctic Wolf’s Aurora Platform
Sevco is the outlier in this comparison because, as of February 23, 2026, it is no longer an independent purchase decision. Founded in Austin, Texas in 2020 and having raised $38.7 million across its funding history, Sevco built its reputation on what Gartner Peer Insights describes as tracking assets across four key dimensions and reconciling disparate data sources into a single trusted record, with particular strength in what the company called asset truth, catching the gap between what an EDR agent reports, what a vulnerability scanner reports, and what actually exists on the network at a given moment in time.
That differentiator earned Sevco a Visionary placement in Gartner’s 2025 research on Exposure Assessment Platforms, and it’s precisely what Arctic Wolf wanted. Futurum Group’s analysis of the deal frames it as Arctic Wolf combining Sevco’s exposure and configuration depth with its own security telemetry inside the Aurora Platform, effectively turning what used to be a standalone CAASM subscription into a bundled feature of a managed detection and response contract. For buyers, that means evaluating Sevco today really means evaluating Arctic Wolf’s broader MDR and SOC offering, not a point solution, a meaningfully different proposition than comparing three independent software purchases. Teams evaluating that kind of bundled MDR path may also want to check our breach and attack simulation comparison, since exposure validation tools increasingly overlap with CAASM data.
The acquisition also says something about where the exposure assessment and CAASM markets are heading more broadly. Arctic Wolf did not buy Sevco to compete with Axonius and JupiterOne on their own turf, it bought Sevco to make its own managed detection and response product smarter about what it’s protecting. That’s a different strategic logic than a horizontal software acquisition, and it suggests other MDR and SOC-as-a-service vendors without a native asset intelligence layer may look to make similar moves, which would only accelerate the consolidation already reshaping this specific corner of the security market in 2026.
Axonius vs JupiterOne vs Sevco: Full Specs Comparison
The table below lines up the three platforms across the criteria that actually move a purchasing decision: deployment model, funding, integration depth, and current market status.
| Criteria | Axonius | JupiterOne | Sevco Security |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2017 | 2020 | 2020 |
| Headquarters | New York, NY | Durham, NC | Austin, TX |
| Current product name | Axonius Asset Cloud | JupiterOne (AI Risk Management Platform) | Sevco cyber asset / exposure platform |
| Data model | Reconciled asset inventory | Security knowledge graph | Time-dimensioned asset correlation |
| Deployment | Agentless, API-driven | Agentless, API-driven | Agentless, API-driven |
| Claimed integrations | 40+ third-party tools | Not publicly quantified | Not publicly quantified |
| Total funding / status | ~$594M+ raised, $2.85B valuation (July 2025) | Not publicly disclosed in 2025-2026 | $38.7M raised pre-acquisition |
| Market status (Sept. 2026) | Independent, VC-backed | Independent, VC-backed | Acquired by Arctic Wolf, Feb. 23, 2026 |
| Reported employee count | ~770-825 | ~70-85 | Not publicly disclosed |
| 2025-2026 ARR / revenue signal | ~$200M ARR (May 2026 est.) | Not publicly disclosed | Not publicly disclosed |
| Notable 2025-2026 launch | Axonius AI, Axonius for Healthcare (2026) | Continuous Controls Monitoring (Nov. 12, 2025) | Folded into Arctic Wolf Aurora Platform |
| G2 rating (where available) | 4.2/5 (7 reviews) | Not disclosed in public snippets | Not disclosed in public snippets |
| Analyst recognition | Named in Gartner Exposure Assessment Platforms Hype Cycle | Sample Vendor, Gartner CAASM Hype Cycle | Visionary, 2025 Gartner Exposure Assessment Platforms |
| Best fit | Large enterprises wanting maximum connector breadth | Cloud-first teams wanting compliance and governance depth | Existing or prospective Arctic Wolf MDR customers |
Pricing Compared: What Each Platform Actually Costs
All three CAASM vendors keep list pricing off their websites, which is standard practice for this tier of enterprise security software, but Axonius is the only one of the three with concrete public figures to point to, pulled from an AWS Marketplace listing analyzed in 2026. A 12-month contract for 500 assets runs $90,625, which works out to roughly $181 per asset per year. A separate 700 SaaS-user contract runs $88,000 over 12 months, or about $126 per user per year. Those two figures alone show that Axonius prices differently depending on whether you’re licensing device assets or SaaS identity coverage, and neither number includes the additional modules like Axonius Identities or Axonius for Healthcare, which are sold separately.
| Vendor | Pricing model | Known reference pricing | Contract minimum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axonius | Per-asset / per-SaaS-user, quote-based | $90,625 for 500 assets/year; $88,000 for 700 SaaS users/year | Enterprise annual contract |
| JupiterOne | Single edition, fully quote-based | Not publicly listed; “available upon request” per G2 | Not publicly disclosed |
| Sevco Security | SaaS subscription, priced by asset count (pre-acquisition) | Not publicly listed per Gartner Peer Insights | Now bundled into Arctic Wolf Aurora contracts |
The practical takeaway for budget owners is that none of these three platforms will show you a number before a sales call, so the real comparison work happens during procurement, not during research. What you can do ahead of time is benchmark against the Axonius reference numbers above and push vendors to justify pricing relative to that per-asset baseline. Teams that have already gone through a similar quote-only procurement cycle for adjacent tooling, like the identity security vendors in our non-human identity security comparison, will recognize the pattern: opaque pricing is the category norm across most of modern enterprise security tooling, not a red flag specific to any one CAASM vendor.
Three-Year Cost Projection: Axonius vs the Quote-Only Field
Because Axonius is the only vendor of the three with a published, dated reference price, it’s the only one that can be projected forward with any confidence. Running the $90,625 annual figure for a 500-asset deployment out over three years, and assuming a flat renewal with no negotiated discount or price escalation, puts a mid-size Axonius deployment at roughly $271,875 over three years for asset coverage alone, before adding modules like Axonius Identities or Axonius for Healthcare. That figure is a floor, not a ceiling. Multi-year enterprise contracts commonly include some combination of volume discounts and inflation-linked increases, and neither was disclosed in the marketplace listing used for this estimate.
| Vendor | Year 1 (est.) | 3-Year Total (est.) | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axonius | $90,625 (500 assets) | ~$271,875 (flat renewal, no discount modeled) | Published AWS Marketplace 12-month rate |
| JupiterOne | Not disclosed | Not disclosed | Single edition, quote-only per G2 |
| Sevco / Arctic Wolf | Not disclosed standalone | Not disclosed standalone | Bundled into Arctic Wolf Aurora contract post-acquisition |
The practical implication is that a like-for-like three-year TCO comparison genuinely cannot be completed from public data alone for JupiterOne or Sevco, and any vendor or third party claiming otherwise is extrapolating rather than citing a disclosed figure. The only responsible way to build a real three-year comparison is to request identical 500-asset, 700-user quotes from all three sales teams (or from Arctic Wolf for the Sevco-derived capability) and insist each proposal spell out year-over-year escalation terms in writing before signature.
CAASM Buying Checklist: Questions to Ask Every Vendor
Because pricing is opaque across the category and feature marketing tends to blur together, the fastest way to cut through vendor pitches is a standard checklist applied identically to Axonius, JupiterOne, and Arctic Wolf’s Sevco-derived offering.
- What is the exact connector count today, not the roadmap? Ask for a current, dated list rather than a marketing number that may include planned or deprecated integrations.
- How is an asset counted for billing purposes? A laptop that shows up in both an EDR feed and an MDM feed should count once, not twice, but not every vendor’s billing logic works that way by default.
- What happens to pricing at renewal? Request the specific escalation clause in writing rather than relying on the first-year quote, since that’s the number that actually determines three-year cost.
- Can the platform export a compliance-ready report without a professional services engagement? Some platforms require paid services help to generate audit-ready evidence, which changes the real total cost significantly.
- What is the data retention and deletion policy if we terminate? This matters more for CAASM than most software categories because the platform holds a live map of your entire attack surface.
- For Sevco specifically, what is the standalone availability and pricing post-acquisition? Given the February 2026 Arctic Wolf deal, confirm directly whether the asset intelligence capability can be purchased without a full MDR contract, since public sources don’t currently answer this.
- How does the platform handle deduplication across sources with conflicting data? Ask for a live demo using your own messy, real-world data rather than a curated sales environment.
- What is the actual time to a first usable, reconciled inventory? Vendors rarely volunteer this number unprompted, and it varies enormously depending on how many connectors you’re standing up in parallel.
Benchmark Data: Reviews, Integration Depth, and Market Signals
Independent benchmark data for CAASM tools is thinner than for more mature categories like EDR or SIEM, but three sources give a useful cross-section. On G2, Axonius carries a 4.2 out of 5 average rating from a small base of seven reviews, with reviewers consistently praising functional depth while flagging cost and a steep learning curve as drawbacks. A separate cross-platform summary from RFP.wiki cites Axonius at 4.5 out of 5 on Capterra and roughly 8.5 out of 10 on PeerSpot, reinforcing that where Axonius shows up in review data, it scores well functionally even as pricing complaints recur.
JupiterOne and Sevco simply don’t have comparable public review volume yet, which is itself informative. Neither platform has a large enough G2 or Capterra footprint to generate a reliable star rating, a gap that likely reflects both companies’ smaller size, JupiterOne’s 70-to-85-person headcount versus Axonius’s roughly 800, and the fact that Sevco spent much of 2025 heading toward an acquisition rather than scaling a self-serve review pipeline. Gartner Peer Insights is the one place all three show up with any consistency, since Gartner tracks CAASM and Exposure Assessment Platforms as a distinct market and Sevco specifically earned a Visionary designation there in 2025, a recognition Axonius has approached from a different angle, appearing in the Exposure Assessment Platforms Hype Cycle rather than a Magic Quadrant-style ranking. On integration breadth, Axonius’s publicly documented 40-plus connector list is the only vendor with a specific number attached in current sources, which makes it the default benchmark for that metric until JupiterOne or Sevco publish comparable figures.
Real-World Use Cases: Where Each Platform Gets Deployed
CAASM tools tend to get purchased for one of a handful of recurring triggers, and understanding which trigger applies to your organization is often more useful than comparing feature checklists.
- Ransomware readiness audits. Security teams use CAASM data to answer the question insurers and auditors ask first: which devices are missing EDR coverage entirely. Axonius and Sevco both built this reconciliation, agent reported vs. inventory expected, as a core workflow rather than an afterthought.
- Post-merger asset reconciliation. When two IT environments combine, nobody has a clean combined asset list on day one. Both Axonius and JupiterOne are commonly cited in M&A due diligence scenarios for unifying disparate CMDBs and cloud accounts into one queryable view within weeks instead of months.
- Compliance evidence generation. JupiterOne’s graph model is particularly suited to SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA evidence gathering, since auditors want to see not just that an asset exists but that a specific control is attached to it, which is exactly what Continuous Controls Monitoring was built to validate in real time.
- Shadow IT and SaaS discovery. Connector-heavy platforms surface SaaS accounts and cloud resources that were never formally provisioned, a use case Axonius leans into with its dedicated SaaS Applications module.
- Cyber insurance renewal. Underwriters increasingly ask for documented asset and control coverage before renewing policies, and a queryable CAASM inventory turns what used to be a manual spreadsheet exercise into an exportable report.
- Regulated-industry device inventories. Axonius for Healthcare, launched in 2026, targets hospitals and health systems that need HIPAA-specific tracking of medical devices and the software running on them, a niche none of the other two platforms currently target with a dedicated module.
- Bundled MDR and exposure management. Organizations already running or evaluating Arctic Wolf’s managed detection and response service now get Sevco’s asset-truth capability as part of that relationship rather than as a separate procurement, a use case unique to Sevco’s post-acquisition status.
How the Arctic Wolf-Sevco Acquisition Changes the Buying Calculus
Before February 2026, a security team evaluating CAASM tools was comparing three independent vendors on roughly equal commercial footing, even if Axonius had the funding edge. That’s no longer true. Arctic Wolf’s acquisition of Sevco means the Sevco evaluation path now runs through Arctic Wolf’s sales process for its Aurora Platform, a managed detection and response product, not a standalone asset visibility tool. Futurum Group’s analysis of the deal describes Arctic Wolf’s intent as combining Sevco’s exposure and configuration depth with its own telemetry, which in practice means Sevco’s asset data becomes an enrichment layer for security operations rather than a product a CISO can buy and deploy independently the way they could a year ago.
This matters for buyers in two concrete ways. First, if your organization wants CAASM as a standalone capability, decoupled from a managed security services contract, Sevco is effectively off the table now and the real choice is Axonius versus JupiterOne. Second, if your organization is already running Arctic Wolf MDR or evaluating it, Sevco’s technology arrives bundled rather than as an incremental line item, which can make the combined Arctic Wolf plus Sevco offering more cost-effective than buying CAASM and MDR from two separate vendors. Security leaders should treat this acquisition the way they’d treat any vendor consolidation event: verify what happens to existing Sevco contracts, ask Arctic Wolf directly about the CAASM feature’s standalone availability and pricing, and don’t assume feature parity with the pre-acquisition Sevco product will hold indefinitely as the two platforms merge engineering roadmaps.
Migration Guide: Moving From Spreadsheets or a Legacy CMDB to CAASM
Most teams adopting a CAASM platform aren’t migrating from a competing CAASM tool, they’re migrating away from manual spreadsheets or an outdated configuration management database that nobody trusts anymore. That migration follows a fairly consistent pattern regardless of which of the three vendors you choose.
- Inventory your existing data sources first. Before connecting anything, list every system that currently holds partial asset truth: EDR console, MDM, cloud provider consoles, identity provider, vulnerability scanner, and any legacy CMDB. Each of these becomes a connector.
- Start with read-only API connections. All three platforms are agentless and API-driven, so the initial rollout should be read-only integrations rather than anything that writes back or takes automated action, minimizing risk during the evaluation window.
- Define your asset taxonomy before ingesting data. Decide upfront what counts as a distinct asset type, laptop, server, container, SaaS account, and how duplicate records across tools should be merged, since this decision shapes every report the platform produces afterward.
- Run a parallel reconciliation pass. For the first 30 to 60 days, compare the CAASM platform’s asset count against your legacy CMDB or spreadsheet, and investigate every meaningful discrepancy rather than assuming the new tool or the old one is automatically correct.
- Build coverage-gap alerts before compliance reports. Configure alerts for assets missing EDR, missing patch management, or missing a required control before you start generating formal compliance evidence, so the reports reflect a stabilized baseline.
- Retire the legacy source of truth deliberately. Don’t decommission the old spreadsheet or CMDB until at least one full audit cycle has run entirely off the new platform’s data, giving stakeholders time to trust the switch.
- Integrate with ticketing and remediation workflows last. Once the inventory is stable and trusted, connect the CAASM platform to your ticketing system so coverage gaps automatically generate remediation tickets rather than sitting in a dashboard nobody checks.
A useful way to sanity-check the reconciled data your CAASM platform produces is to look at what a normalized asset record actually contains once multiple sources have been merged. A simplified, illustrative example of that reconciled structure looks like this:
{
"asset_id": "a-7f21c9",
"hostname": "fin-laptop-0442",
"asset_type": "endpoint",
"sources_reporting": ["EDR", "MDM", "Identity Provider"],
"edr_coverage": false,
"last_seen": "2026-09-18T11:04:00Z",
"owner": "finance-team",
"compliance_flags": ["missing_edr_agent"]
}That one record, an asset three different tools each partially knew about, with a compliance flag none of them would have raised alone, is the entire value proposition of CAASM in miniature.
Pros and Cons: Axonius
- Pro: Widest documented connector library among the three, with 40-plus integrations spanning cloud, security, and IT operations tools.
- Pro: Best-capitalized vendor in the category, with a $2.85 billion valuation and roughly $200 million in ARR as of mid-2026, reducing the risk of an acquisition disrupting the roadmap the way it did for Sevco.
- Pro: Actively expanding into vertical-specific modules like Axonius for Healthcare, giving regulated industries a purpose-built option.
- Con: Reviewers consistently flag Axonius as the most expensive of the three, with a documented $90,625 minimum reference contract for just 500 assets.
- Con: G2 reviewers describe a steep learning curve tied to the platform’s broad, multi-module feature set.
Pros and Cons: JupiterOne
- Pro: The graph data model is genuinely different from row-and-column inventory tools, and it maps naturally onto compliance and governance questions that ask about relationships, not just lists.
- Pro: Continuous Controls Monitoring, launched November 12, 2025, addresses a real gap, point-in-time audits versus continuously validated control coverage, that neither Axonius nor Sevco has publicly matched with a named equivalent feature.
- Pro: Single pricing edition simplifies the sales conversation, even without public numbers, compared to Axonius’s multi-module pricing structure.
- Con: Smallest team of the three, with reported headcount in the 70-to-85 range, which may raise questions about support capacity at large enterprise scale.
- Con: Public integration counts and review data are thinner than Axonius’s, making it harder to benchmark objectively before a sales call.
Pros and Cons: Sevco Security
- Pro: Gartner-recognized Visionary status in Exposure Assessment Platforms reflects a genuinely differentiated time-dimensioned tracking approach to asset truth.
- Pro: Now backed by Arctic Wolf’s scale and managed security operations expertise, potentially accelerating feature development that a $38.7 million-funded startup couldn’t have matched alone.
- Pro: Bundling with Arctic Wolf MDR can be more cost-effective for organizations already buying managed detection and response services.
- Con: No longer purchasable as an independent standalone product, removing it as an option for teams that specifically want CAASM decoupled from an MDR contract.
- Con: Product roadmap and pricing are now subject to Arctic Wolf’s broader platform priorities rather than Sevco’s own, with integration timelines still settling as of September 2026.
Which CAASM Tool Fits Your Organization
The right answer depends heavily on organization size, existing vendor relationships, and whether CAASM needs to stand alone or can live inside a broader security operations contract.
- Large enterprises with complex, multi-cloud environments should default to Axonius, given its documented 40-plus connector library and the operational maturity that comes with an approximately 800-person team and $200 million in ARR.
- Cloud-first teams prioritizing compliance and governance over raw inventory breadth will likely prefer JupiterOne’s graph model, especially if Continuous Controls Monitoring maps directly onto an active SOC 2 or ISO 27001 program.
- Organizations already running or seriously evaluating Arctic Wolf MDR should ask specifically about the bundled Sevco asset intelligence capability rather than shopping CAASM separately, since the combined contract may undercut a standalone Axonius or JupiterOne purchase on total cost.
- Healthcare and other regulated industries with device-heavy compliance requirements have a genuine reason to weight Axonius for Healthcare in the evaluation, since neither competitor has announced a comparable vertical module.
- Mid-market security teams with limited headcount may find JupiterOne’s single pricing edition and smaller, more focused platform easier to operate without a dedicated CAASM administrator, though this should be validated directly with references given the thin public review data.
- Teams mid-acquisition or managing post-merger IT consolidation should prioritize whichever platform can connect to the widest range of legacy systems fastest, which currently favors Axonius on documented connector count alone.
The Verdict: What the Data Actually Supports
Axonius is the safest default recommendation for most enterprise buyers in September 2026, and the numbers back that up rather than just reputation. A $2.85 billion valuation, roughly $200 million in ARR, 40-plus documented integrations, and the only vendor of the three with publicly verifiable reference pricing all point to a platform built for teams that need breadth and can absorb enterprise-grade cost, with contracts starting around $90,625 for a 500-asset deployment. JupiterOne earns a real recommendation for a narrower but important segment: organizations where compliance and governance queries matter more than raw connector count, particularly now that Continuous Controls Monitoring gives it a genuinely distinct capability Axonius hasn’t matched with a named equivalent as of this writing.
Sevco is the hardest of the three to recommend on its own merits simply because you can no longer buy it on its own merits. Its Gartner Visionary recognition and time-dimensioned asset-truth approach were legitimate technical differentiators, but as of February 23, 2026 that technology lives inside Arctic Wolf’s Aurora Platform, and evaluating it means evaluating a managed detection and response relationship, not a software purchase. For teams already in or considering that relationship, the bundled economics could easily beat buying CAASM and MDR separately. For everyone else, the September 2026 CAASM decision has effectively narrowed to Axonius versus JupiterOne, with the choice coming down to whether your organization values connector breadth and enterprise polish, or a leaner, graph-native platform built around continuous compliance validation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CAASM and how is it different from asset management software?
Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) reconciles asset data from multiple existing tools, EDR, MDM, cloud APIs, identity providers, into a single deduplicated inventory, then surfaces security gaps like missing agent coverage. Traditional asset or IT management software (ITAM) typically tracks assets for procurement and lifecycle purposes rather than continuously cross-referencing security control coverage across sources.
Is Sevco Security still available as a standalone product in 2026?
No. Arctic Wolf acquired Sevco Security on February 23, 2026, and its asset intelligence technology is now integrated into Arctic Wolf’s Aurora Platform. Organizations interested in Sevco’s capabilities need to evaluate it through Arctic Wolf’s managed detection and response sales process rather than as an independent software purchase.
How much does Axonius cost?
Axonius does not publish list pricing, but a 2026 AWS Marketplace listing showed a 12-month contract for 500 assets priced at $90,625, roughly $181 per asset per year, and a separate 700-SaaS-user contract priced at $88,000 per year. Final enterprise pricing depends on asset count, modules selected, and negotiated terms.
Does JupiterOne publish its pricing?
No. JupiterOne sells a single pricing edition with rates available only upon request, according to its G2 pricing profile. There are no published per-asset or per-user figures in current public sources.
Which CAASM platform integrates with the most tools?
Axonius is the only vendor of the three with a specific, publicly documented integration count, listing more than 40 third-party connectors as of 2026, covering cloud platforms, endpoint security tools, and IT operations software. JupiterOne and Sevco have not published comparable connector counts in current sources.
What is Continuous Controls Monitoring in JupiterOne?
Continuous Controls Monitoring, launched by JupiterOne on November 12, 2025, is described by the company as the industry’s first cyber asset graph solution for real-time security control validation. Instead of checking whether a control is attached to an asset only during periodic audits, it validates that relationship continuously.
Do these platforms require installing agents on every device?
No. All three platforms, Axonius, JupiterOne, and Sevco Security, use agentless, API-driven architectures, pulling data from existing tools like EDR consoles, identity providers, and cloud APIs rather than requiring a new agent installed on every endpoint.
Which CAASM tool is best for a healthcare organization?
Axonius is currently the only vendor of the three with a dedicated healthcare-specific module, Axonius for Healthcare, introduced in 2026 for HIPAA-regulated medical device and system inventories. Neither JupiterOne nor Sevco has announced a comparable vertical-specific product as of September 2026.
Related Coverage
- SafeBreach vs AttackIQ vs Cymulate: $15K CTEM Gap [2026]
- Darktrace vs Vectra AI vs ExtraHop: $179K NDR Gap [2026]
- Cloudflare WAF vs AWS WAF vs Azure WAF: $310 Price Gap [2026]
- Red Light Therapy at Home: What to Know Before Choosing a Wearable Device
- Banned Dahua Cameras Turn Up in Leapmotor's 6-Cam EV [2026]
