ZeroEyes

Name: ZeroEyes
Brand: ZeroEyes
Rating: 4.9 (23 reviews)

A.I.-based weapons detection to prevent & mitigate gun-related violence. Save Time. Save Lives.

Est 2018|Valuation $303.4M|Raised $79.3M|95 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 21K|Web traffic 10K|FTEs 188

MarketsPhysical Security Systems

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas where ZeroEyes may have advantages - Integration with existing camera infrastructure can reduce incremental hardware for certain coverage models. - Use of a third-party verification center addresses the operational issue of immediate human review for suspected detections. - The vendor's SAFETY Act designation is used in procurement and liability discussions and can be a factor in some public-sector evaluations. Areas where competitors may be stronger - Vendors that combine detection with automated response orchestration (e.g., mass notification, access control integration) may reduce time to action if integrations are in place. - Physical screening approaches detect some metallic threats at controlled entry points and may be preferred where entrance screening is the primary threat mitigation strategy. - Acoustic gunshot detection provides a complementary, reactive capability in outdoor or large-area scenarios where camera pixel density is insufficient. Customer choice dynamics - Community acceptance, facility layout, and threat model drive solution choice. Many institutions evaluate a combination of visible deterrence (e.g., screening, guards) and early-warning analytics. Public procurement practices and perceptions of vendor-favoring language can influence vendor selection.

	ZeroEyes	Omnilert (Gun Detect)	Physical Screening (Metal Detectors)
Starting Price	Vendor guidance gives indicative per-camera and per-detection-point pricing; actual price varies by deployment	Vendor-published appliance pricing and licensing statements vary; enterprise pricing requires engagement	Capital expenditure and staffing costs vary; per-entrance hardware and staffing can be significant
Best For	Camera-rich environments seeking automated visual detection with third-party verification	Organizations seeking appliance options and integrated incident automation	Controlled-entrance screening environments where physical inspection is acceptable
Key Capability	Integration with existing IP camera ecosystems and third-party verification service	Appliance deployment option and incident automation features	Ability to detect some metallic weapons at entry points depending on configuration
Key Limitation	Cannot detect concealed weapons; performance depends on camera coverage and image quality	Appliance claims and false-positive performance should be validated in pilots	High equipment and staffing costs, friction for throughput

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Areas where ZeroEyes may have advantages

Integration with existing camera infrastructure can reduce incremental hardware for certain coverage models.
Use of a third-party verification center addresses the operational issue of immediate human review for suspected detections.
The vendor's SAFETY Act designation is used in procurement and liability discussions and can be a factor in some public-sector evaluations.

Areas where competitors may be stronger

Vendors that combine detection with automated response orchestration (e.g., mass notification, access control integration) may reduce time to action if integrations are in place.
Physical screening approaches detect some metallic threats at controlled entry points and may be preferred where entrance screening is the primary threat mitigation strategy.
Acoustic gunshot detection provides a complementary, reactive capability in outdoor or large-area scenarios where camera pixel density is insufficient.

Customer choice dynamics

Community acceptance, facility layout, and threat model drive solution choice. Many institutions evaluate a combination of visible deterrence (e.g., screening, guards) and early-warning analytics. Public procurement practices and perceptions of vendor-favoring language can influence vendor selection.

	ZeroEyes	Omnilert (Gun Detect)	Physical Screening (Metal Detectors)
Starting Price	Vendor guidance gives indicative per-camera and per-detection-point pricing; actual price varies by deployment	Vendor-published appliance pricing and licensing statements vary; enterprise pricing requires engagement	Capital expenditure and staffing costs vary; per-entrance hardware and staffing can be significant
Best For	Camera-rich environments seeking automated visual detection with third-party verification	Organizations seeking appliance options and integrated incident automation	Controlled-entrance screening environments where physical inspection is acceptable
Key Capability	Integration with existing IP camera ecosystems and third-party verification service	Appliance deployment option and incident automation features	Ability to detect some metallic weapons at entry points depending on configuration
Key Limitation	Cannot detect concealed weapons; performance depends on camera coverage and image quality	Appliance claims and false-positive performance should be validated in pilots	High equipment and staffing costs, friction for throughput