We compared Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus based on our users reviews in six parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
The setup process for Qualys VMDR is quick and uncomplicated, taking only a few minutes. However, setting up Qualys Container Security can be intricate and time-consuming. In contrast, Tenable Nessus is described as straightforward and effortless to set up, taking anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours.
Qualys VMDR is notable for its effective prioritization system, ongoing monitoring, customizable dashboard, and extensive vulnerability overview. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus excels in vulnerability assessment, reporting, and ease of use.
Both Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus have areas that could be improved. Qualys VMDR could enhance user experience, UI design, SLA tracking, batch prioritization, integration, reporting, and dashboards. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus could improve integration, pricing, user interface, reporting, support, and learning resources.
Both Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus provide valuable returns on investment. Qualys VMDR prioritizes the reduction of cybersecurity risks, while Tenable Nessus places emphasis on proactive vulnerability discovery and patch deployment.
The customer service for Qualys VMDR has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the convenience of reaching out to a global team and the implementation of suggested improvements. However, there are concerns about the response time and the expertise of the support staff. Tenable Nessus also has a mix of reviews. Some customers find the support to be prompt and useful, while others believe that the support team could be more knowledgeable and that the solutions provided are not always effective.
Comparison Results
Based on the reviews, Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus have similar initial setup processes that are straightforward and easy. However, Qualys VMDR stands out for its user-friendly setup and maintenance, including automatic agent updates. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus is highly effective in vulnerability assessment and reporting, and is also praised for its affordability and scalability. Qualys VMDR is valued for its prioritization mechanism and comprehensive overview of vulnerabilities, while Tenable Nessus is commended for its real-time monitoring and self-updating engine. Customer service and support for both products have received mixed reviews, with some users finding the support teams responsive and helpful, while others had negative experiences or did not require support.
"The most valuable features of Qualys VM are its ability to do proper vulnerability assessment. It has a lot of updates for all the vulnerability databases from all over the globe. It's an amazing solution when it comes to the versatility of the features it has. Additionally, the reports are very good. It generates very detailed reports about the vulnerabilities inside the environment"
"Qualys VM is very stable."
"Qualys VM's most valuable feature is automatic detection."
"Great web application security for scanning."
"The prioritization feature is great. I think it has all of the advanced features that we need."
"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 Vulnerability Management and Patch Management features are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The features that are most valuable are the identification, scan features, and the identification of vulnerabilities."
"I have found the vulnerability assessment and the reports to be useful."
"Security is the key number because it can start to scan with a few clicks instead of credits, which is a bit complicated. So simplicity is the first advantage. Then the generated reports are well done and easy to present to management. The quality of the scan is quite good in detecting the severity. The solution has simplicity. Also, it has frequent updates so that is also a valuable feature."
"The features of Tenable Nessus that I have found most valuable are its reliability and its ability to collate a dependable output, where we are able to get the same vulnerability when we test manually. The output is quite reliable."
"Overall Zoom is a good solution."
"It's scalable."
"Nessus is effortless to integrate."
"The solution can scale well."
"It allows me to prioritize efforts and utilize effective technical resources."
"I would like to see this solution simplified to work more easily in a multi-cloud environment."
"Qualys should improve their customer experience. They need to improve the tech support experience and the turnaround time."
"I would like to see this solution more developed and competitive in the Cloud space."
"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."
"Some of the older features could be polished instead of focusing on releasing new features."
"The reporting and dashboards could improve in Qualys VM. However, they have improved since the previous versions."
"The reporting and the GUI need improvements."
"The IoT scan is not great."
"The solution could improve by having better integration with different vendors' IPS solutions. The ACLs and IPS policies signatures should be enabled based on the results of Tenable Nessus automatically, we currently have to do it manually which is very time-consuming. It has done a good job integrating with Fortinet but we would like it to be better integrated with other solutions that we have."
"It would be better if they had application-level support for mobile devices. They don't have anything to scan mobile devices. Tenable Nessus doesn't have a mobile application vulnerability assessment. I also have issues with the false positive rates. The product has limited features."
"One significant drawback we encounter is the tool's tendency to flag patched packages incorrectly. For instance, if a package is patched by Debian maintainers but not updated to a major or minor version, Nessus may still flag it as vulnerable based on its database. This discrepancy leads to false alarms and requires our developers, system admins, and DevOps teams to address them."
"Scans aren't done properly and some devices aren't pinged."
"The accuracy of the vulnerability assessment is not up to par yet, as false alarms and false positives occur often."
"Multiple steps to create an actionable plan will be a great addition to Nessus."
"This is still a maturing product. Tenable is only a scanner for one ability, while other solutions like Rapid7 have more tools for verification. We still have to manually verify to see if the vulnerability is a false positive or not."
"In Nessus Professional, the main drawback was that we could have a single-user login password. So it could be better in terms of security."
Qualys VMDR is ranked 3rd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 77 reviews while Tenable Nessus is ranked 3rd in Vulnerability Management with 75 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Tenable Nessus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Nessus writes "Unlimited assets for one price and quick, agentless results". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Tanium, whereas Tenable Nessus is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Tenable Security Center, Pentera and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management. See our Qualys VMDR vs. Tenable Nessus report.
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.