Here's why computer analysis (on any platform) can not find brilliant moves.
They don't exist.
Now, I recognize that this seems very counter-intuitive, but bear with me. This has to do with the difference between how we (intuitively) view a chess game and how a computer (correctly) views a chess game.
When we look at a chess position, we subconsciously view the position on the board as having a certain value, and we look to improve that value.
Chess computers look at this in a completely different way.
The value that they assess the position is based on perfect play from the position forward - the only way to deviate from the perfect play is to make an error of some sort.
Example: You're losing a game by a bit, and then you find a beautiful, non-obvious tactic that nets your opponent's queen. In our human minds, we just took the game from losing to winning with our brilliancy. According to the computer, the position was already winning for you, because the computer saw the brilliancy. Any move other than the brilliancy is likely a mistake of some sort.
Non-obvious "brilliant" moves do not change the value of the position - they merely fulfill its potential.
Now, of course there are moves that we consider "excellent" or "brilliant" for one reason or another (requires a sacrifice, isn't immediately obvious, requires deep calculation, etc.). Don't get me wrong - it feels very rewarding to find one of these moves, and some moves are undeniably "!!" moves for human players. However, any analysis (on the part of a spectator or a player) that does not take into account the "!!" move is incorrect in the first place, and the "!!" move shows that.
Also, creating an objective definition of "brilliancy" is next to impossible - sometimes we "know" a move is brilliant, but we can't consistently explain why.