HEAD-TO-HEAD · FACTS ONLY
Hadrian vs Defender EASM: exposure management facts side by side
SHORT ANSWER
Hadrian describes 4 of the five tool types on the pages we read and Defender EASM describes 2; they differ on exposure validation and exposure management platforms. On proof, Hadrian describes attack-style testing and Defender EASM does not describe exploit testing on the pages we read. We do not score either; the right choice depends on your estate, current platform, WAFs and capacity to fix.
By The Exposure Desk · Exposure Management Finder · Published 2026-10-11
Desk research from public vendor pages read in September 2026, updated 2026-10-11. Profiles follow our published method; we did not run the products.
How do their shapes compare?
- Hadrian
- Microsoft Defender EASM
- Outer point: described on the vendor's pages we read
- Inner point: not in our sources (it may exist; we did not find it)
What are the facts, side by side?
| Fact | Hadrian | Microsoft Defender EASM |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning | An agentic AI platform for attack surface management and penetration testing, with continuous external exposure management (ATLAS) and priced agentic penetration tests (NOVA). | Microsoft's external attack surface management service, run as an Azure resource, with a prebuilt inventory, recursive discovery from seeds and billing on the Azure bill. |
| Deployment | Scans run hourly or when an event triggers them. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | An Azure resource. Cross-tenant resource access, including Azure Lighthouse, is not supported. Source: Microsoft Learn: Defender EASM overview · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| EASM discovery | Described Continuous discovery with hourly or event-triggered scans; machine learning confirms asset ownership. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Described A prebuilt inventory for many organisations plus recursive discovery from seeds you supply. Source: Microsoft Learn: what is discovery · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Exposure validationDiffers | Described Agentic AI that, by Hadrian's account, proves exploitability within 15 minutes. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Not in our sources |
| Exposure management platformsDiffers | Described ATLAS is priced as continuous external exposure management; internal assets are not described. Source: Hadrian pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Not in our sources |
| CTEM programme support | Described Discovery, prioritisation, exploit validation, remediation guidance, automatic tickets and automatic regression testing. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Described Covers discovery and inventory with dashboards for vulnerabilities, compliance and hygiene; remediation happens downstream through Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer. Source: Microsoft Learn: data connections · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| WAF posture | Not in our sources | Not in our sources |
| 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 | 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 | Not in our sources |
| Cloud connections namedDiffers | Not in our sources | Partly Runs as an Azure resource; connections to other clouds are not described. Source: Microsoft Learn: data connections · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Exploitability checkedDiffers | Matches Proves exploitability with agentic testing. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Not in our sources |
| Attack-style testingDiffers | Matches Agentic AI simulates attacks to prove impact. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Not in our sources |
| Works through your WAF or edge | Not in our sources | Not in our sources |
| WAF coverage across several vendors | Not in our sources | Not in our sources |
| Retests after a fixDiffers | Matches Automatic regression testing after fixes. Source: Hadrian technology · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Not in our sources |
| Routes findings to owners and ticketsDiffers | Matches Automatic ticket creation, with Jira, ServiceNow, GLPI, Slack, Microsoft Teams, SentinelOne, Datadog and Zendesk. Source: Hadrian integrations · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Partly Data connectors to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer trigger remediation actions downstream. Source: Microsoft Learn: data connections · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Applies a compensating control | Not in our sources | Not in our sources |
| Price or pricing basis publishedDiffers | Matches NOVA agentic penetration tests cost from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. Source: Hadrian pricing (re-read) · Read 13 Oct 2026 | Partly Billable assets are defined (approved host:IP combinations, domains and IP addresses) and charged on the Azure bill; Microsoft's pricing page showed no rate when we read it. Source: Microsoft Learn: understanding billable assets · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Trial or self-serve startDiffers | Not in our sources | Matches A 30-day free trial, then Azure billing. Source: Microsoft Learn: understanding billable assets · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Platform it extends | None | Native to Azure, billed on the Azure bill, with a Security Copilot integration in preview. Source: Microsoft Learn: Defender EASM documentation · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Integrations | Jira, ServiceNow, GLPI, Slack, Microsoft Teams, SentinelOne, Datadog, Zendesk and HubSpot, plus an API. Source: Hadrian integrations · Read 27 Sep 2026 | Data connections to Log Analytics and Azure Data Explorer, and a Security Copilot integration in preview. Source: Microsoft Learn: data connections · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
| Price | NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. ATLAS on AWS Marketplace, 12-month contract: up to 250 assets (domains, IP addresses and certificates) $50,000. Source: AWS Marketplace: Atlas External Attack Surface Management · Read 11 Oct 2026 | Billed through Azure on billable assets (approved host:IP combinations, domains and IP addresses) after a 30-day free trial. Microsoft's pricing page did not show a rate when we read it; check it for the current figure. Source: Microsoft Learn: understanding billable assets · Read 27 Sep 2026 |
Where do they differ?
- Exposure validation: Hadrian describes it; Defender EASM is not in our sources.
- Exposure management platforms: Hadrian describes it; Defender EASM is not in our sources.
- Cloud connections named: Hadrian is not in our sources; Defender EASM partly matches.
- Exploitability checked: Hadrian matches; Defender EASM is not in our sources.
- Attack-style testing: Hadrian matches; Defender EASM is not in our sources.
- Retests after a fix: Hadrian matches; Defender EASM is not in our sources.
- Routes findings to owners and tickets: Hadrian matches; Defender EASM partly matches.
- Price or pricing basis published: Hadrian matches; Defender EASM partly matches.
- Trial or self-serve start: Hadrian is not in our sources; Defender EASM matches.
Choose Hadrian if
- You want attack-style proof and a price you can see before a call
- You need fixes retested automatically
Choose Defender EASM if
- You are on Azure and want to start without a sales call
- You want a discovery baseline before buying validation
Which limits should you check?
Hadrian
- Hadrian lists a mergers and acquisitions assessment add-on for Atlas; ownership is confirmed by machine learning.
- No WAF or edge mitigation is described.
Defender EASM
- No exploit validation is described.
- No built-in remediation workflow, and no cross-tenant resource access for groups with several Azure tenants.
Questions readers ask
Is Hadrian or Defender EASM better?
Neither is scored on this site. Hadrian describes 4 of five tool types and Defender EASM 2 on the pages we read, and they differ on 9 recorded facts. Which fits depends on your estate, current platform, need for proof, WAFs and capacity to fix; the finder checks those.
Which of the two proves exploitability?
Hadrian: exploitability checked: Matches; attack-style testing: Matches. Defender EASM: exploitability checked: Not in our sources; attack-style testing: Not in our sources.
Do Hadrian or Defender EASM publish prices?
Hadrian: NOVA agentic penetration test: from 1,250 euros per test excluding VAT, bundles available. ATLAS on AWS Marketplace, 12-month contract: up to 250 assets (domains, IP addresses and certificates) $50,000. Defender EASM: Billed through Azure on billable assets (approved host:IP combinations, domains and IP addresses) after a 30-day free trial. Microsoft's pricing page did not show a rate when we read it; check it for the current figure.