BlastRadar vs Proxon (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of BlastRadar and Proxon on pricing, features, and fit, so you can decide which is right for you.
Quick answer
BlastRadar and Proxon are both strong choices, but they fit different needs. Choose BlastRadar if you mainly need assessing the risk of refactoring legacy code before making changes — its edge is reduces regression risk by surfacing hidden dependencies before deployment. Choose Proxon if you need auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks — its edge is provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. BlastRadar starts at Contact for pricing; Proxon starts at On request.
Features compared
- Blast radius mapping for code changes across an entire codebase
- Dependency graph visualization showing upstream and downstream impact
- Automated change impact analysis to flag high-risk modifications
- Integration support for code review and CI/CD workflows
- Automated discovery and inventory of all AI tools across an organization, including shadow AI
- Ownership assignment and policy binding per AI system
- Real-time spend tracking and budget attribution for each AI tool
- Centralized compliance and governance dashboard for IT and security teams
Pros & cons
- Reduces regression risk by surfacing hidden dependencies before deployment
- Saves time compared to manually tracing impact across large codebases
- Helps engineering teams make more confident and informed code review decisions
- Pricing is not publicly available, making it harder to evaluate cost upfront
- May require setup and integration effort before delivering value in existing workflows
- Provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized AI tool usage
- Directly links AI tools to owners, policies, and costs for clear accountability
- Designed specifically for enterprise security and IT governance workflows
- Pricing is not publicly available, making it difficult to budget without a sales conversation
- May require significant onboarding effort to fully integrate with existing IT infrastructure
The verdict
Choose BlastRadar if
you mainly need to assessing the risk of refactoring legacy code before making changes. Its edge: reduces regression risk by surfacing hidden dependencies before deployment.
Choose Proxon if
you mainly need to auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks. Its edge: provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage.
Frequently asked questions
Is BlastRadar better than Proxon?
Neither is universally better. BlastRadar is stronger for assessing the risk of refactoring legacy code before making changes, with an edge in reduces regression risk by surfacing hidden dependencies before deployment. Proxon is stronger for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, with an edge in provides comprehensive visibility into both approved and unauthorized ai tool usage. Pick based on your main task.
Which is cheaper, BlastRadar or Proxon?
BlastRadar starts at Contact for pricing and Proxon starts at On request. Free tier: BlastRadar — Not available; Proxon — No public free tier.
What is BlastRadar best for?
BlastRadar is best for assessing the risk of refactoring legacy code before making changes, reviewing pull requests to understand what systems a change could break, onboarding new developers by helping them understand codebase dependencies.
What is Proxon best for?
Proxon is best for auditing all ai applications in use across a large enterprise to identify shadow it risks, enforcing ai usage policies and mapping each tool to a responsible owner, tracking and controlling ai-related software spend across business units.
Do BlastRadar and Proxon have free plans?
BlastRadar: Not available. Proxon: No public free tier. Check each tool's pricing page for current limits, as plans change.