We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Rapid7 InsightVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management."The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"The solution is automatically scheduled so it runs by itself."
"The remediation project is a pretty effective because it allows us, as clients or countries, to choose specific assets and set limitations on them for a certain period which allows us to track and follow up on those limitations. However, when it comes to real-time monitoring and live dashboards, InsightVM doesn't quite fit the bill. It's not a real-time solution and is not instant."
"I like Rapid7's scan optimization options."
"One of the most valuable features is it's graphical dashboard feature. It is quite easy to manage the widgets, and we can customize those according to our queries."
"This solution is very easy to use and easy to install."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"The reports in Rapid7 InsightVM are useful when compared to competitors."
"The risk score that they provide makes it easier to find out the biggest risks. It helped the security officers to understand where the biggest risks are so that they can act on them. They can instruct their IT teams to give them a higher priority and mitigate them."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"We are a registered reseller and a trusted partner. However, for us to get any support from them I can't log a call directly with Rapid7 InsightVM. I have to work with the distributor to log the call for me."
"The team needs to improve the speed and focus on the new bandwidth feed. Sometimes, it takes a while to scan, especially with new updates."
"All products have room for increased security and Rapid7 InsightVM is no exception."
"We'd like the agent to cover more compliance issues."
"There are certain limitations because of the product being used on a hybrid model. Rapid7 InsightVM doesn't offer a solution purely in the cloud."
"There should be containerization within the VM."
"The reporting is very bad when you compare it with other vulnerability assessment tools."
"Their customer support should be improved, and the effectiveness of scans also needs to be improved."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 12th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management while Rapid7 InsightVM is ranked 4th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 55 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 InsightVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rapid7 InsightVM writes "You can scan a network, and receive recommendations to address vulnerabilities with the click of a button". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Brinqa and Avalor, whereas Rapid7 InsightVM is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Pentera.
See our list of best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Risk-Based Vulnerability Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.