When choosing between AI-powered video security platforms, two names consistently rise to the top: Avigilon and Verkada. Both companies offer sophisticated solutions, but they take different approaches to security technology.
Avigilon, now part of Motorola Solutions, has been a trusted name in enterprise security for years. Their platform combines traditional on-premises systems with newer cloud-based offerings. Verkada, on the other hand, emerged as a cloud-first company, building their entire ecosystem around modern, connected devices.
The choice between these platforms often comes down to your organization’s size, technical requirements, and long-term security goals. Let’s dive deep into how these two industry leaders stack up across the key areas that matter most.
What are the key differences between Avigilon and Verkada as security platforms?
The fundamental difference lies in their architectural approach. Avigilon offers both traditional on-premises solutions and cloud-based platforms, giving customers flexibility in deployment options. Their Avigilon Control Center (ACC) serves enterprise clients who prefer local storage and processing, while Avigilon Alta provides cloud-based services for organizations wanting modern, scalable solutions.
Verkada built their platform from the ground up as a cloud-native system. Every camera, sensor, and access control device connects directly to their cloud infrastructure. This approach simplifies deployment and management but requires consistent internet connectivity.
Avigilon is highly scalable and suitable for large enterprises and public organizations, while Verkada is more geared towards small to medium-sized businesses but is expanding its capabilities. However, both companies are expanding their market reach, with Verkada increasingly targeting enterprise clients and Avigilon developing more SMB-friendly solutions.
From a user experience perspective, Verkada emphasizes simplicity and ease of use. Their interface is designed for non-technical users, making it accessible to organizations without dedicated IT security teams. Avigilon’s platforms offer more granular control and customization options, appealing to security professionals who need specific configurations.
The hardware approach also differs significantly. Verkada manufactures their own cameras and access control devices, ensuring tight integration between hardware and software. Avigilon offers both proprietary devices and supports third-party cameras, providing more flexibility for existing installations.
How do Avigilon and Verkada approach video analytics and AI?
Both companies leverage artificial intelligence, but their implementation strategies vary considerably. Avigilon has been developing AI analytics for over a decade, with their Unusual Motion Detection and Appearance Search technologies becoming industry standards.
Avigilon’s AI video analytics software helps detect anomalies, automate investigations & act quickly on events. Their analytics run both on-device and in the cloud, depending on the specific solution. The Avigilon Control Center processes analytics locally on powerful servers, while Avigilon Alta performs analysis in the cloud.
Verkada’s AI runs entirely in the cloud, processing video streams from all connected cameras. This centralized approach allows for consistent analytics across all devices and enables rapid deployment of new AI features through software updates. Their analytics include people and vehicle detection, face recognition, and license plate reading.
The key difference is processing power and customization. Avigilon’s on-premises solutions can dedicate significant computing resources to analytics, enabling more sophisticated detection algorithms. Their cloud platform also offers custom AI training for specific use cases.
Verkada’s cloud-based analytics are standardized across all installations, ensuring consistent performance but limiting customization options. However, this approach makes their AI features more accessible to smaller organizations that lack technical resources.
Both platforms offer real-time alerts, historical search capabilities, and integration with mobile apps for remote monitoring. The choice often depends on whether you prioritize customization (Avigilon) or simplicity (Verkada).
Which company offers better camera hardware options?
Hardware selection reveals another key difference between these platforms. Avigilon offers an extensive range of cameras, from basic IP cameras to high-end multi-sensor devices with advanced analytics capabilities.
Avigilon Alta cameras offer dome, bullet, multisensor, PTZ and wireless options. Their traditional ACC platform supports thousands of third-party camera models, making it ideal for organizations with existing installations or specific hardware requirements.
Verkada takes a more curated approach, manufacturing their own cameras with consistent specifications across their product line. Their cameras feature built-in storage, processing power, and wireless connectivity as standard features. This integration ensures optimal performance with their cloud platform but limits hardware choices.
From a technical perspective, Avigilon’s high-end cameras often feature superior image quality and low-light performance. Their H5A and H5SL series cameras include advanced image sensors and analytics processing capabilities that exceed most competitors.
Verkada’s cameras excel in ease of installation and management. They’re designed for quick deployment with minimal technical expertise required. Features like onboard storage, WiFi connectivity, and cellular backup make them particularly attractive for locations with limited infrastructure.
For specialized applications, Avigilon offers more options including explosion-proof cameras, thermal imaging devices, and ultra-high-resolution models. Verkada focuses on mainstream security applications with standardized camera models that cover most common use cases.
How do Avigilon and Verkada handle video storage?
Storage architecture represents one of the most significant differences between these platforms. Avigilon’s traditional Control Center system stores video locally on servers or network-attached storage devices. This approach provides complete control over data but requires significant upfront hardware investment.
Rack-mounted servers for large deployments support up to 200 cameras, transitioning devices to Alta Video cloud with AI analytics. Avigilon’s cloud platform, Alta, stores video in secure data centers with redundancy and backup systems.
Verkada stores all video in the cloud by default, with local backup storage in each camera. This hybrid approach ensures video availability even during network outages while providing centralized access and management. Their cameras typically include 30-120 days of local storage depending on the model.
The storage decision impacts several factors including cost, security, and accessibility. Local storage requires ongoing maintenance and hardware refresh cycles but keeps sensitive video data on-premises. Cloud storage eliminates hardware management but creates ongoing subscription costs.
For organizations with strict data sovereignty requirements, Avigilon’s on-premises storage provides complete control. However, cloud storage offers advantages like automatic backups, disaster recovery, and remote access from any location.
Both companies encrypt video data both in transit and at rest. Avigilon’s cloud storage includes geographic redundancy and compliance with various industry standards. Verkada similarly provides enterprise-grade security for their cloud infrastructure.
Which system integrates better with access control and other security tools?
Integration capabilities vary significantly between these platforms, reflecting their different architectural approaches. Avigilon offers extensive integration options through their ecosystem of products and third-party partnerships.
Avigilon Alta features fully integrated technology that can associate video hardware with entries and view real-time access activity alongside live footage, with integrated and customizable management dashboards accessible from any device.
The Avigilon Control Center platform integrates with hundreds of third-party systems including access control, fire panels, building management systems, and analytics platforms. This flexibility makes it suitable for complex enterprise environments with diverse security technologies.
Avigilon Alta provides tighter integration between video surveillance and access control within their cloud ecosystem. Both Verkada and Avigilon Alta offer mobile access, with Verkada offering mobile credentials through its app, allowing users to unlock doors via Bluetooth-enabled devices.
Verkada’s integrated approach extends across their entire product line, including cameras, access control, environmental sensors, and alarms. All devices work together seamlessly within their cloud platform, providing unified management and reporting.
However, Verkada’s integration with third-party systems is more limited compared to Avigilon’s traditional platform. While they offer APIs and support some common integrations, their cloud-first architecture doesn’t easily accommodate legacy systems.
For organizations seeking the deepest integration with existing security infrastructure, Avigilon’s traditional platform typically offers more options. For those wanting simple, unified management across all security systems, Verkada’s integrated approach may be more appealing.
How do Avigilon and Verkada compare on cybersecurity and data privacy?
Both companies prioritize security, but their approaches reflect their different architectures. Avigilon’s on-premises solutions keep video data within your facility, providing complete control over access and security policies. Their cloud platforms implement enterprise-grade security measures including encryption, access controls, and audit logging.
Avigilon’s cloud-based VMS and hardware are compliant with global government regulations and ensure commitment to good security culture, technology and processes.
Verkada’s cloud-first approach requires robust security measures to protect customer data. They implement zero-trust architecture, end-to-end encryption, and regular security audits. However, some organizations remain concerned about storing sensitive video data in third-party clouds.
Both companies offer features like two-factor authentication, role-based access controls, and detailed audit trails. Avigilon’s enterprise solutions provide more granular security controls, while Verkada focuses on making security features accessible and easy to implement.
Data residency can be a concern for certain organizations. Avigilon’s on-premises solutions store data locally, while their cloud platforms offer some control over data center locations. Verkada operates data centers in multiple regions but provides limited control over specific data locations.
For government agencies, financial institutions, and other highly regulated industries, Avigilon’s on-premises options may be preferred. However, both companies meet common compliance requirements including SOC 2, GDPR, and various industry-specific standards.
What industries typically choose Avigilon vs. Verkada?
Industry preferences often align with each platform’s strengths and architectural approaches. Avigilon’s traditional strongholds include large enterprises, government agencies, critical infrastructure, and industries with complex security requirements.
Educational institutions, healthcare facilities, transportation hubs, and manufacturing plants frequently choose Avigilon for their extensive customization options and integration capabilities. These environments often have existing security infrastructure that benefits from Avigilon’s flexible platform.
Verkada initially focused on small to medium businesses but has expanded into enterprise markets. Their simple deployment and management appeal to organizations without dedicated security teams, including retail chains, office buildings, restaurants, and distributed enterprises.
Technology companies, startups, and modern enterprises often prefer Verkada’s cloud-first approach, which aligns with their digital transformation initiatives. The platform’s ease of use makes it attractive to organizations that want professional security capabilities without complexity.
Geographic factors also play a role. In regions with limited IT infrastructure or unreliable internet connectivity, Avigilon’s on-premises solutions may be more practical. Conversely, organizations in well-connected urban areas may prefer Verkada’s cloud advantages.
Both companies are expanding their market reach, with Avigilon developing more SMB-friendly solutions and Verkada targeting larger enterprise clients. The choice increasingly depends on specific requirements rather than organization size alone.
How do their pricing models and total cost of ownership compare?
Pricing structures reflect the fundamental differences between these platforms. Avigilon uses traditional capital expenditure models for their on-premises systems, with upfront costs for hardware, software licenses, and installation. Their cloud platform, Alta, uses subscription pricing similar to Verkada.
Avigilon’s traditional systems require significant initial investment in servers, storage, and networking equipment. However, ongoing costs are primarily maintenance and support contracts. For large installations planned for many years, this model can be cost-effective.
Verkada’s subscription model includes hardware, software, cloud storage, and support in monthly or annual payments. This approach reduces initial costs and provides predictable ongoing expenses. However, total cost over several years may exceed traditional capital expenditure models.
Hidden costs can impact total ownership expenses significantly. Avigilon’s on-premises systems require IT staff for maintenance, server refreshes every 3-5 years, and potential bandwidth upgrades for remote access. Verkada’s cloud model eliminates most hardware maintenance but requires reliable internet connectivity.
For budget planning, Verkada’s subscription model provides cost predictability and easier financial approval processes. Organizations preferring to own their security infrastructure may find Avigilon’s traditional model more attractive despite higher upfront costs.
Both companies offer financing options and flexible contract terms. The best choice depends on your organization’s financial preferences, technical capabilities, and long-term security strategy.
Which platform scales better for large or multi-site enterprises?
Scalability requirements differ significantly between single-site and multi-site deployments. Avigilon’s traditional Control Center platform excels at large single-site installations, supporting thousands of cameras with centralized management and storage.
For multi-site deployments, Avigilon Alta provides cloud-based centralized management across unlimited locations. Multiple users can access and manage the system simultaneously, fostering better teamwork and coordination in security operations.
Verkada’s cloud architecture inherently supports multi-site deployments. Adding new locations requires only installing cameras and connecting them to the internet. Centralized management, reporting, and user access work seamlessly across all sites.
Technical scalability also varies between platforms. Avigilon’s on-premises systems can handle extremely high camera counts and video quality but require significant infrastructure planning. Their cloud platform scales automatically but may face bandwidth limitations for high-resolution video streams.
Verkada’s standardized approach simplifies scaling but may not accommodate specialized requirements at individual sites. Their platform works best when security needs are consistent across locations.
Both platforms support role-based access controls, allowing different permission levels for corporate security teams, site managers, and local personnel.
What are the biggest pros and cons of Avigilon vs. Verkada?
Avigilon Pros:
- Extensive hardware compatibility and customization options
- Proven track record in large enterprise and government installations
- Flexible deployment options (on-premises, cloud, or hybrid)
- Advanced AI analytics with local processing capabilities
- Deep integration with third-party security systems
- Complete data control with on-premises storage options
Avigilon Cons:
- Complex installation and configuration requirements
- Higher upfront costs for traditional systems
- Requires technical expertise for optimal operation
- Server maintenance and refresh cycles add ongoing costs
- Steeper learning curve for new users
Verkada Pros:
- Simple installation and user-friendly interface
- Predictable subscription pricing with no upfront hardware costs
- Automatic software updates and new feature deployment
- Excellent mobile app and remote access capabilities
- Unified platform covering cameras, access control, and sensors
- Built-in redundancy with local and cloud storage
Verkada Cons:
- Limited customization and integration options
- Dependency on reliable internet connectivity
- Less control over data storage and processing
- Higher long-term costs for large installations
- Fewer specialized camera options for unique applications
- Limited support for existing third-party systems
