Does Axis Have A Lower TCO Than Hikvision?

If it’s price point alone, that’s a different customer than one who perhaps looks at TCO.

The argument here is that Hik has a lower price point AND lower TCO than Axis.

Do you think Axis has a lower TCO (in mainstream applications) than Hik?

NOTICE: This comment was moved from an existing discussion: I Lost My Axis Silver Partner Status Today


This is a fascinating question.

Years ago, Axis heavily emphasized TCO but that was in the context of competing with analog (e.g., Debating Axis's IP vs Analog Cost Comparison).

I do not recall Axis making any claims or assertions about their TCO vs other IP camera manufacturers. Of course, they are promoting their 'quality' but that's more soft stuff like 'an elephant can step on an Axis camera' or 'in video games, we're indestructible'.

Long-term quality is a potential differentiator for any premium manufacturer, and Axis is undoubtedly quite good but the problem is, all indicators are that Hikvision is quite good / reliable as well.

If anyone has any ideas on how they work compare TCO of Axis vs Hikvision, I would be curious to hear it.

Ok, so no one has offered anything. That's not good for Axis...

Hikvision's clear #1 problem is cybersecurity. Outside of that, Hikvision can go head to head with Axis on almost all mainstream applications.

Perhaps it would be an interesting question if Hikvision offers some official information about their products' mean time to failure which Axis does to their partners?

But how would one validate eithers numbers? Maybe Hikvision is making things up? Maybe Axis is making things up?

For both companies, the consistent reports we get is that product failures are similiary low for both. This is not a historical Arecont or ACTi issue, where lower price is traded off for higher failure rates.

Manufacturer's MTBF numbers are a load of BS. It's marketing, pure and simple, there is no way of verifying their claims.

We OEM'd ACTi cameras for 7 years. Their claim to us (in negociating RMA warranty/repair conditions) was that their historical failure rate was "about 1%". It was nonsense. The REAL number was upwards of 10% (and more, if we took into account problems that were solved with firmware/software updates or with lens adjustments) with an out-of-the-box failure rate of more than 3%.