Axiado AX3080 TCU vs SEALSQ Automotive EV Charging: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

Axiado AX3080 TCU

Enterprise security teams protecting high-value assets from supply-chain and firmware-level attacks will find the AX3080 TCU's hardware root of trust and anti-tamper design irreplaceable; this is one of the few tools that actually moves the attack surface below the OS. OCP DC-SCM compliance plus integrated HSM and side-channel attack protection give you forensic anchoring most endpoint platforms can't touch. Skip this if your priority is detecting lateral movement or hunting active threats post-breach; the AX3080 is preventive infrastructure, not a detection engine.

SEALSQ Automotive EV Charging

Enterprise and mid-market OT security teams protecting EV charging networks should evaluate SEALSQ Automotive EV Charging for its ISO 15118 Plug & Charge compliance and integrated PKI lifecycle management, which eliminates the common gap between charger hardware and identity provisioning that leaves most deployments vulnerable to protocol-level attacks. The vendor's VaultIC secure elements handle both certificate management and firmware updates within the same silicon, addressing the NIST PR.AA and PR.DS functions that most charging operators struggle to implement consistently across distributed charger fleets. Skip this if your EV charging infrastructure is still running legacy non-connected chargers or if you need application-layer visibility beyond the charging protocol itself; SEALSQ focuses narrowly on the authentication and encryption layer, not fleet operations or grid integration.