We performed a comparison between Cisco SecureX and IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Vulnerability Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The forensics are amazing because when you have enrichment, and the solutions talk with each other, when you need it, you have the ability to know everything in the organization: when, why, whatever."
"I like that I don't have to jump around to five different products and log into five different places to view the data that it returns."
"Integrates well with our existing security infrastructure."
"It has evolved a lot, just that monitoring piece to the current Orchestrator piece. The additional analytics are there. They now have something called Insight, which can basically take data from Microsoft Azure AD and Intune to give us information about our endpoints. This is detailed information about the endpoints, from Secure Endpoint and all these different products. So, it is just constantly evolving. Every time that it evolves, we have more information with more visibility. There are more features that we have that just make everything so much easier, and it is in one place. I don't have to keep going back and forth. I don't have to go to Secure Endpoint and ISE to get the data. I don't have to go to Intune on Microsoft to get the information. It is all in one place."
"SecureX enables us to have all the threat intelligence and threat event data in one place."
"SecureX takes all the separate pieces of security within your company, adds in intelligence from different sites and services on the internet, and makes them work together."
"Using SecureX, a tool provided by Cisco, we can easily integrate it with many of our other Cisco products such as Cisco ISE and many networking devices."
"The automation and orchestration tools are the most valuable features."
"It helped with some of the regulatory requirements. It also helped with some of the security analytics and analysis. It was worthwhile from that perspective."
"The reporting features are good and there are many built-in reports that can be quickly configured."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides a simple English recommendation on actions that you need to take once a vulnerability is discovered."
"They could expand into more areas. The more third-parties that we have tied into it, the better. The capabilities are there. As they just continue to involve the product, the more things that you can look into, then the more analytics that you can get. Also, the more data that we can get, then the better off we will be."
"For us, the biggest sticking point is that the product is not being designed for multi-tenancy use at present, from an MSP perspective."
"The automation and orchestration could be simpler. It could be that all the other parts are that easy to use so that these stick out as a negative, but that's the trickiest part for us. The workflows within the orchestration are just a bit more difficult."
"The playbooks provided with the product are great, although I would appreciate having more playbooks available. Threats are constantly evolving, so having access to updated playbooks is crucial."
"I'm not sure that I would call it a bug, but sometimes the solution is a little slow."
"The front-end work controls the new algorithm and the firewall rules. The search feature of these rules could be improved."
"They could put in more third-party [integrations]... also more playbooks, out-of-the-box, for automation [would be helpful]."
"If they could make the Cisco Umbrella piece a little bit more advanced or easier to manage, that would help. We use it for filtering and when you compare it to a normal content filter, it lacks some functionality."
"Building policies is not that easy. There are some things that are turned off by default, for example, displaying values."
"The interface could be improved by having sub-groups of tests, ultimately making the process of collecting tests faster."
"It was not as easy to use. The user-friendliness of it was somewhat lower than what I was expecting. It was also lacking in terms of the ease of the setup. There should be an automatic agent for deployment."
More IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SecureX is ranked 16th in Vulnerability Management with 13 reviews while IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is ranked 41st in Vulnerability Management with 3 reviews. Cisco SecureX is rated 9.0, while IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is rated 6.6. The top reviewer of Cisco SecureX writes "Gives our customers visibility and they don't have to go multiple management consoles anymore". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment writes "Worthwhile from the regulatory requirements and analytics perspective, but is expensive and not easy to use". Cisco SecureX is most compared with Microsoft Defender XDR, Trend Vision One, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Splunk SOAR and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Orca Security and Acunetix. See our Cisco SecureX vs. IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all 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.