Compare
Exploit Hound and ConnectSecure
ConnectSecure is a vulnerability management and compliance platform built specifically for MSPs, with a long track record in the channel and a broad scanning catalog.
Statements about ConnectSecure below are taken from their own platform page and pricing page. Capabilities and packaging change; verify anything that would decide your purchase directly with them. Comparison last verified 15 August 2026.
Which one fits
ConnectSecure is the better fit when
Your priority is breadth of scanning and compliance reporting across many small customers, and you want patching in the same tool. Their platform lists operating system and application patching, web application and PII scanning, and 20+ built-in compliance frameworks. If your service is built around delivering compliance evidence at volume, that is a lot of ground covered natively.
Exploit Hound is the better fit when
Your problem is not finding vulnerabilities but deciding which ones matter. If your technicians are drowning in a list that is technically complete and practically unusable, the difference here is attack paths, choke points and a ranked set of actions with the reasoning attached — then proof the fix worked.
Capability comparison
| Capability | Exploit Hound | ConnectSecure |
|---|---|---|
| MSP multi-tenancy | ✓ | ✓ |
| Internal network scanning | ✓ | ✓ |
| External attack surface | ✓ | ✓ |
| Endpoint agent | ✓ | ✓ |
| Active Directory assessment | ✓ | ✓ |
| Entra ID / M365 assessment | ✓ | ✓ |
| EPSS prioritization | ✓ | ✓ |
| CISA KEV | ✓ | — |
| Web application scanning | ✗ | ✓ |
| PII discovery | ✗ | ✓ |
| Native OS and application patching | ✗ | ✓ |
| Compliance frameworks | ◐ six | ✓ 20+ |
| Exposure graph | ✓ | — |
| Attack path analysis | ✓ | — |
| Choke point identification | ✓ | — |
| NetFlow telemetry | ✓ | — |
| Honeypot / deception | ✓ | — |
| Hybrid identity attack paths | ✓ | — |
| PSA ticketing integration | ✓ | ✓ |
| RMM remediation orchestration | △ NinjaOne, beta | — |
| Remediation verified by re-checking | ✓ | — |
| Self-hosting option | ✓ | — |
| Published price list | ✗ | ✓ |
How to read this table
✓ native and included · △ available depending on tier, add-on product or integration · ◐ partial or limited · — not verified, or not directly comparable
A blank is never used to imply absence. Where we have not verified something we write —, because “we did not check” and “they do not have it” are different claims and only one of them is ours to make.
Where ConnectSecure is stronger
- ✓It can patch
ConnectSecure lists operating system and application patching natively. Exploit Hound does not patch anything — it submits approved actions to the RMM you already run, and only NinjaOne is implemented so far, in beta. If you want one tool that both finds and fixes, that is a real gap on our side.
- ✓Wider scanning catalog
Web application scanning and PII discovery are on their platform and not on ours.
- ✓More compliance frameworks
20+ against our six. If your customers need Essential Eight or Cyber Essentials evidence today, we do not map to them.
- ✓Longer channel track record
They have been selling to MSPs for years and integrate with more of the tools around them. We are newer, and a longer reference list is a legitimate thing to weigh.
- ✓Published pricing
Their pricing is on their website. Ours is not yet.
Where Exploit Hound is stronger
- ✓Attack paths rather than a ranked list
We build a graph of assets, services, identities and observed traffic, then find routes from an entry point to something that matters. A prioritized list tells you what is bad; a path tells you what a fix removes.
- ✓Reachability from evidence, not assumption
NetFlow records and honeypot activity feed the same risk model, so a vulnerability nothing can reach ranks below one that is being probed today.
- ✓Hybrid identity in one graph
An on-premises account synchronised to a privileged cloud identity is one edge in our graph, so “internet-facing server leads to tenant administration” is a path we can draw. Assessing AD and Entra separately cannot produce that sentence.
- ✓Remediation is verified, not assumed
After a fix we re-check the service and report what we actually observed — including when we could not check, which is reported as unverified rather than counted as fixed.
Day-to-day differences for an MSP
Pricing model
ConnectSecure publishes per-tenant pricing, which is straightforward to model across many small customers. We do not publish a price list yet, which is a fair thing to hold against us during an evaluation.
Deployment
Both run an agent and a network probe per customer. Exploit Hound can additionally be self-hosted, which matters if you have customers whose data cannot leave your infrastructure.
Where the work lands
Both integrate with PSA tools. We additionally push approved remediation into an RMM and then verify the result, so the loop closes without a technician moving between consoles.
Can they coexist?
They overlap heavily, so running both is usually paying twice for scanning. The honest answer is that this is a choice rather than a pairing — unless you keep ConnectSecure for compliance evidence and patching while using Exploit Hound for prioritization, which some MSPs would find worth the duplication and many would not.
Migration considerations
Asset inventory and authorization scope have to be re-established; findings do not transfer, and neither does remediation history. If you rely on ConnectSecure for patching, keep it until your RMM path is proven — ours covers NinjaOne only, in beta. Expect to run both briefly rather than switching in a weekend.
Start with what's actually exposed.
Point Exploit Hound at the assets you are authorized to assess and see the connected picture — not another list.