We performed a comparison between Qualys VMDR and SUSE NeuVector based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Qualys VMDR is praised for its user-friendly interface, prioritization system, and customizable dashboard. It effectively addresses vulnerabilities and offers valuable scanning capabilities. SUSE NeuVector is praised for its wide range of features, informative user interface, ISO certification checks, and automation capabilities. Reviewers said Qualys VMDR could improve by offering more customization options and integrating more seamlessly with other systems. The interface could be clearer, and Qualys could enhance scanning capabilities for IoT and industrial control systems. SUSE NeuVector needs to expand scanning support and work on monitoring, reporting, and integration.
Service and Support: Qualys VMDR's customer service is mostly considered accessible and responsive. However, some reviewers reported slow response times and expressed a desire for more skilled support personnel. SUSE NeuVector's support is praised for being supportive, prompt, and well-informed, although a few reviewers consider the process to be complex.
Ease of Deployment: The Qualys VMDR setup is considered uncomplicated and efficient, requiring only a short amount of time. A few users encountered challenges with integration and ensuring data privacy. Some reviewers think setting up SUSE NeuVector is straightforward, while others find it complex and challenging. Integrating SUSE NeuVector with pipelines is particularly difficult, often requiring the use of custom scripts.
Pricing: The cost of Qualys VMDR varies depending on the organization's business requirements. Some find it affordable, but others consider it costly compared to alternatives. The pricing and licensing experiences of SUSE NeuVector users vary, with some considering it affordable and others indicating a need for improvement.
ROI: Qualys VMDR is highly efficient in identifying vulnerabilities and reducing risks. SUSE NeuVector provides the largest ROI for high-risk sectors such as financial services, although its benefits may be limited for some sectors, such as retail.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Qualys VMDR over SUSE NeuVector for its easy setup, intuitive interface, and robust feature set, including its customizable dashboards and comprehensive vulnerability overview. SUSE NeuVector's setup is considered more complex and challenging, requiring custom scripts for integration. Users also express the need for improvements in scanning capabilities, documentation, and integration.
"PingSafe released a new security graph tool that helps us identify the root issue. Other tools give you a pass/fail type of profile on all misconfigurations, and those will run into the thousands. PingSafe's graphing algorithm connects various components together and tries to identify what is severe and what is not. It can correlate various vulnerabilities and datasets to test them on the back end to pinpoint the real issue."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"The remediation process is good."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"The management console is the most valuable feature."
"Intuitive and easy to use."
"It is quite easy to implement."
"Vulnerability management is the most valuable one and it’s a must in every organization."
"Qualys VM is very stable."
"Qualys VM had a recent upgrade and the newer version is supporting the cloud."
"It's a good product. After the scan our internet works well. It scans our security posture."
"I find Qualys VM very robust, and it's very useful for vulnerability management and patch management. The value that it brings to my environment is economies of scale. There is no limitation on adding any endpoints. You go by the rule, and it's added once another endpoint is added to our environment. It's automatically installed, and it's less work from our end. It frees up my license automatically if I don't need an endpoint or if my machine is decommissioned. I like the dashboard displays because I don't see any duplication. The most important part is vulnerability management and prioritization. Unlike Symantec, it shows the kind of vulnerability I would want to patch first. It provides a holistic view of the kind of vulnerabilities and the ones I should remediate first. I don't have to do a scan; it just brings up those critical kinds of vulnerabilities like zero-day vulnerabilities and tells me to prioritize them. You have to prioritize these vulnerabilities first and go on with the rest. The dashboard shows me the ones that have been fixed, so I don't have to complete an aging report. The user experience and the graphical interface are good. As it's user-friendly and understandable on an executive level, it brings real value. We also use this solution because it's robust and flexibile."
"The biggest benefit is from a security operations perspective, where we are able to drive our security posture upwards by remediating any discovered vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The could improve their mean time to detect."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"Some of the older features could be polished instead of focusing on releasing new features."
"Integration could be better. When you think about scanning, it's not used just with this product alone but with other Qualys products. If you think about the bundle, the product itself is good. But integration with other products and packages has space for improvement. They should also offer a better price for bundles."
"Endpoint stability and fault resolution could be improved."
"We are moving away from Qualys to Defender ATP because I find that Defender ATP is much better at prioritizing the vulnerabilities that I should be looking at."
"The IoT scan is not great."
"The customer support is very bad."
"The solution is a bit expensive if you do not have access to discounts."
"There's a need to upgrade or fix the potential vulnerability rate. Around 20,000 potential vulnerabilities were showing in Qualys VMDR, but none of the other tools showed them. When we checked, it wasn't the case. Support explained that even small issues were being counted as vulnerabilities, causing issues in our audit. So, the security features could be improved to identify vulnerabilities accurately."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Qualys VMDR is ranked 11th in Container Security with 77 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 20th in Container Security with 7 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Sysdig Secure. See our Qualys VMDR vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
