Eyecast

Name: Eyecast
Brand: Eyecast

Multi-Location Video Surveillance without DVRs * Cloud Secure * Zero Loss * Zero Risk * Future Proof

Est 1998|Valuation $94.2M|Raised $32M

LinkedIn 168|Website|FTEs 15|HQ Sunrise, Florida, US

MarketsPhysical Security Systems

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (differentiators, where Eyecast appears to differ)

Where Eyecast appears differentiated in vendor messaging: - Emphasis on eliminating on-premises DVR/NVR infrastructure and providing a vendor-managed service option intended to reduce internal operational overhead. - Positioning around archiving and evidentiary handling for exported/archived video, which is relevant for litigation and loss-prevention workflows. Where competitors may have advantages based on public documentation: - Security/compliance documentation: some competitors have publicly announced completion of SOC 2 and ISO 27001 audits, providing independent validation of controls. - Market visibility and buyer validation: competitors typically have broader market presence and more third-party coverage. - Ecosystem integrations and enterprise identity features: competitors often document SSO, audit logs, and APIs more explicitly in public materials.

Adoption trends and market share

The vendor claims a large installed base in the U.S., but no third-party market-share data was found to substantiate the claim. Procurement teams should seek references and market validation during vendor evaluation.

	Eyecast (vendor claims)	Verkada (representative)	Eagle Eye Networks (representative)
Starting Price	Vendor cites a low per-camera monthly price for 30-day continuous storage (quote-driven)	Representative published pricing models often show per-camera license fees (hardware sold separately)	Reported pricing varies by tier; enterprise offerings can range substantially per camera per month
Primary Fit	Multi-site customers preferring a vendor-managed cloud recording service and reduced on-site DVR operations	Organizations seeking integrated hardware-plus-cloud with a modern admin experience and proprietary hardware	Organizations needing broad device compatibility and a mature cloud/hybrid VMS architecture
Key Strength	Vendor-managed service model; archival positioning; analog and IP support via encoders and hardware	Integrated product ecosystem with an emphasis on user experience	Broad camera compatibility and an established cloud VMS approach
Key Weakness	Limited publicly documented third-party security attestations and limited third-party review footprint; pricing transparency limited	Potentially higher TCO due to mandatory licensing and potential ecosystem lock-in	Pricing complexity and potential integrator dependency; cloud/hybrid tradeoffs depending on deployment

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (differentiators, where Eyecast appears to differ)

Where Eyecast appears differentiated in vendor messaging:

Emphasis on eliminating on-premises DVR/NVR infrastructure and providing a vendor-managed service option intended to reduce internal operational overhead.
Positioning around archiving and evidentiary handling for exported/archived video, which is relevant for litigation and loss-prevention workflows.

Where competitors may have advantages based on public documentation:

Security/compliance documentation: some competitors have publicly announced completion of SOC 2 and ISO 27001 audits, providing independent validation of controls.
Market visibility and buyer validation: competitors typically have broader market presence and more third-party coverage.
Ecosystem integrations and enterprise identity features: competitors often document SSO, audit logs, and APIs more explicitly in public materials.

Adoption trends and market share

	Eyecast (vendor claims)	Verkada (representative)	Eagle Eye Networks (representative)
Starting Price	Vendor cites a low per-camera monthly price for 30-day continuous storage (quote-driven)	Representative published pricing models often show per-camera license fees (hardware sold separately)	Reported pricing varies by tier; enterprise offerings can range substantially per camera per month
Primary Fit	Multi-site customers preferring a vendor-managed cloud recording service and reduced on-site DVR operations	Organizations seeking integrated hardware-plus-cloud with a modern admin experience and proprietary hardware	Organizations needing broad device compatibility and a mature cloud/hybrid VMS architecture
Key Strength	Vendor-managed service model; archival positioning; analog and IP support via encoders and hardware	Integrated product ecosystem with an emphasis on user experience	Broad camera compatibility and an established cloud VMS approach
Key Weakness	Limited publicly documented third-party security attestations and limited third-party review footprint; pricing transparency limited	Potentially higher TCO due to mandatory licensing and potential ecosystem lock-in	Pricing complexity and potential integrator dependency; cloud/hybrid tradeoffs depending on deployment