Maybe, kinda, sorta. There certainly isn't anything that has gained traction to displace Briant's work as a default recommendation, a good introductory point for students, or a monographical work. However, as sweeping coverage of the most recent research and analysis from across Achaemenid Studies A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire edited by Bruno Jacobs and Robert Rollinger will probably serve that roll for most of the foreseeable future. Part of the Wiley/Blackwell Companions series, it's a two volume monster totaling 1746 pages. It is an edited volume, so each chapter is a different author addressing a different topic, usually related to their niche in the field.
As a result, the historical narrative is told through a series of articles analyzing different periods in Section IV. This is one of the Companion's great weaknesses compared to something like From Cyrus to Alexander. Briant's format allows for specific sources and events to be addressed in depth through coverage in chronological order, with a large section discussing the topics that require generalization in the middle of the book. The Companion's format forces discussion of those topics out of a straight narrative and into chapters on relevant topics covering the whole span of Achaemenid history. It necessarily forces the individual authors to frame information to a discussion about their topic rather than situating each source in terms of the events occurring at the same time.
For what it's worth, I do think that we'll see a more direct successor to Briant's work in the near future, but in some ways From Cyrus to Alexander will never be replaced. In many ways, it is both a generation of scholars' magnum opus and the foundational text of Achaemenid Studies as a discipline. From Cyrus to Alexander is largely a product of a series of conferences called the Achaemenid Studies Workshops that occurred throughout the 1980s, largely organized by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Other scholars, including Briant, came to play a major role in Workshops as well.
From the first discoveries and translation of ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian sources in the 19th Century: Assyriology, Egyptology, Biblical Studies, Indology, and Classics had generally acted as separate fields with scholars from each discipline often ignoring or being ignorant of work done by the others. In the study of Achaemenid Persia, this was particularly problematic as the Empire spanned all of those regions. By the 1980s, interdisciplinary approaches were becoming more common in academia as a whole, and certain scholars like Weerdenburg had started incorporating that approach into their work more frequently. They often found that interpretations of the Achaemenid period from authors primarily concerned with eastern source material varied wildly from the mainstream assumptions of Classicists who dominated discussions of the Persian Empire.
Ultimately that gave rise to the Workshops as an effort to bring scholars focused on the Achaemenids in line with one another. That's really the starting point for Achaemenid Studies as a unified field rather than a niche time period in many separate disciplines.
From Cyrus to Alexander was one of the first works to draw the lessons of the Workshops into a single survey, and is the most thorough by far. Many of the people who participated in the Workshops still dominate Achaemenid Studies today, and many of the other major names are people who were graduate students at the time or soon after. Much of their work and analysis still rests on that framework, meaning that From Cyrus to Alexander remains a detailed survey of how leading Achaemenists approach things.
Only recently has that started to change. Academia often moves in generational waves, with one round of scholars analytical preferences dominating peer reviews and publication for decades to the detriment alternative approaches. Today, the Achaemenid Studies Workshops generation is passing away or reaching retirement. Likewise, more divergent interpretations are gaining traction, especially those with a greater emphasis on Elamite history, the Medes, and placing greater weight on events that do not feature prominently in the surviving sources. Eventually, that will snowball into a second or third generation approach to the discipline where some new survey will be more inline with ongoing research.