Documented by Cortex Xpanse only: none.
Documented by IONIX only: OWNED, PROVEN and RECHECKED.
Documented by both: FOUND, CONTAINED and ROUTED.
HEAD-TO-HEAD
Cortex Xpanse vs IONIX: which ASM tool takes an exposure further?
THE SHORT ANSWER
IONIX scores higher overall on our weights, 8.05 to 6.40. Cortex Xpanse scores higher on Fits the enterprise stack; IONIX scores higher on Finds the unlisted estate, Routes to an owner, Proves exploitability, Contains before the patch, Closes the loop and Buying transparency. The table below gives the reason for every score.
Cortex Xpanse
Rank 5 of 10
Best for: Palo Alto Networks Cortex estates that want automated response through XSOAR
IONIX
Rank 1 of 10
Best for: Large enterprises with many subsidiaries that want exposures contained and fixed, not only listed
Which tool scores higher on each criterion?
| Criterion | Cortex Xpanse | IONIX | Higher |
|---|---|---|---|
Finds the unlisted estate 15%WhyCortex Xpanse: Palo Alto Networks states it scans all 4.3 billion IPv4 addresses several times a day and 500 billion+ ports daily. IONIX: Recursive Connective Intelligence mapping with 13 discovery techniques reaches subsidiaries and third- and fourth-party suppliers. | 8 / 10 | 9 / 10 | IONIX |
Routes to an owner 10%WhyCortex Xpanse: Identifies third-party stakeholders for exposures; subsidiary attribution detail is not on the pages reviewed. IONIX: Attributes each asset to the relevant subsidiary or business owner automatically; IONIX's claims about fewer false positives are its own. | 7 / 10 | 8 / 10 | IONIX |
Proves exploitability 20%WhyCortex Xpanse: Exploitability validation is not described on the product pages reviewed; the emphasis is discovery and response. IONIX: Non-intrusive exploit simulations, plus safe active testing of new CVEs in Live Exposure Defense; watchTowr, CyCognito and Hadrian document heavier attack-style testing. | 5 / 10 | 8 / 10 | IONIX |
Contains before the patch 20%WhyCortex Xpanse: Active Response runs built-in automated playbooks against exposures; edge WAF rules are not named. IONIX: Agentic mitigation "automatically invoke[s] compensating controls": WAF rules deployable through Akamai, Cloudflare and other WAFs within its 12-hour Live Exposure Defense SLA, plus Active Protection for dangling assets and DNS hijacking targets. | 7 / 10 | 9 / 10 | IONIX |
Closes the loop 15%WhyCortex Xpanse: Routes and remediates through Cortex XSOAR playbooks; a retest after the fix is not described. IONIX: Routes findings to Jira and ServiceNow, tracks each CVE from identified to resolved, and its homepage states "Instant re-validation of remediated items"; step-by-step fix guidance is described less fully than at CyCognito or Hadrian. | 6 / 10 | 8 / 10 | IONIX |
Fits the enterprise stack 10%WhyCortex Xpanse: Native ties to Cortex XSOAR and Prisma Cloud inside the Palo Alto Networks Cortex portfolio. IONIX: Names Jira, ServiceNow, Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Cortex XSOAR, Slack, Wiz and Prisma Cloud plus an API; a shorter list than the platform suites. | 9 / 10 | 7 / 10 | Cortex Xpanse |
Buying transparency 10%WhyCortex Xpanse: No price from Palo Alto Networks; a UK G-Cloud reseller listing shows £70,850.84 per instance per year. IONIX: Lists three monthly plans on AWS Marketplace (Silver $25,000, Gold $35,000, Platinum $45,000 per month on a 1-month contract); no price on its own site and no free trial listed. | 3 / 10 | 6 / 10 | IONIX |
Which steps does each tool document?
Cortex Xpanse
- FOUNDDocumented
Internet-wide IPv4 scanning several times a day.
- OWNEDPartial
Third-party stakeholders identified; subsidiary attribution not detailed.
- PROVENNot documented
Exploitability validation not described on the pages reviewed.
- CONTAINEDDocumented
Active Response automated playbooks.
- ROUTEDDocumented
Routing and remediation through Cortex XSOAR playbooks.
- RECHECKEDNot documented
Retest after a fix not described.
IONIX
- FOUNDDocumented
Recursive discovery with 13 techniques, including supply-chain assets.
- OWNEDDocumented
Assets attributed to subsidiary or business owner automatically.
- PROVENDocumented
Non-intrusive exploit simulations; safe active testing in Live Exposure Defense.
- CONTAINEDDocumented
Agentic mitigation invokes compensating controls: WAF rules within the 12-hour SLA; Active Protection reclaims hijackable assets.
- ROUTEDDocumented
Findings and rules delivered into remediation workflows; Jira and ServiceNow named.
- RECHECKEDDocumented
Homepage states "Instant re-validation of remediated items"; Live Exposure Defense tracks CVEs to resolved.
Partial counts as not documented for these three lines.
What do they cost?
Cortex Xpanse
No price from Palo Alto Networks. Reseller price: a UK G-Cloud 14 listing by Khipu Networks shows £70,850.84 per instance per year, no free trial, public-facing attack surface only.
To start: Not published on the pages reviewed.
IONIX
AWS Marketplace, 1-month contract, cost per month: Silver Plan (monthly monitoring) $25,000; Gold Plan (weekly monitoring) $35,000; Platinum Plan (continuous monitoring) $45,000. 12-, 24- and 36-month contracts offered (24 months "save up to 10%", 36 months "save up to 20%"). No price on ionix.io.
To start: Not published on the pages reviewed. IONIX states "immediate time-to-value".
Which should you choose?
Choose Cortex Xpanse if
- it matters most to you that it fits the enterprise stack (9/10)
- it matters most to you that it finds the unlisted estate (8/10)
Choose Cortex Xpanse if Cortex XSOAR already runs your response and you want exposures acted on by playbook. Look elsewhere if proof of exploitability is your main gap.
Choose IONIX if
- it matters most to you that it contains before the patch (9/10)
- it matters most to you that it finds the unlisted estate (9/10)
Choose IONIX if your estate spans many subsidiaries or acquisitions, you run WAFs from vendors such as Akamai or Cloudflare, and you want exploitable exposures blocked at the edge while owners patch. Look elsewhere if you need a price on the vendor's own site or a published integrations list.
Frequently asked questions
Which proves exploitability better, Cortex Xpanse or IONIX?
IONIX scores higher on our proof criterion (Cortex Xpanse 5/10, IONIX 8/10). Cortex Xpanse: Exploitability validation is not described on the product pages reviewed; the emphasis is discovery and response. IONIX: Non-intrusive exploit simulations, plus safe active testing of new CVEs in Live Exposure Defense; watchTowr, CyCognito and Hadrian document heavier attack-style testing.
Can Cortex Xpanse or IONIX contain an exposure before the patch?
Cortex Xpanse documents one: Active Response automated playbooks. IONIX documents one: Agentic mitigation invokes compensating controls: WAF rules within the 12-hour SLA; Active Protection reclaims hijackable assets. Contain scores: Cortex Xpanse 7/10, IONIX 9/10.
Which is easier to buy, Cortex Xpanse or IONIX?
Cortex Xpanse: No price from Palo Alto Networks. Reseller price: a UK G-Cloud 14 listing by Khipu Networks shows £70,850.84 per instance per year, no free trial, public-facing attack surface only. IONIX: AWS Marketplace, 1-month contract, cost per month: Silver Plan (monthly monitoring) $25,000; Gold Plan (weekly monitoring) $35,000; Platinum Plan (continuous monitoring) $45,000. 12-, 24- and 36-month contracts offered (24 months "save up to 10%", 36 months "save up to 20%"). No price on ionix.io. Buying transparency scores: Cortex Xpanse 3/10, IONIX 6/10.
Read next
- Cortex Xpanse profile
Scores, sources and pricing
- IONIX profile
Scores, sources and pricing
- Beyond Cortex Xpanse: alternatives
Eight alternatives ranked
- Beyond IONIX: alternatives
Eight alternatives ranked
- Line them up
Add more tools to this comparison
- Exposure triage calculator
Set your own weights and must-haves