We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Rapid7 InsightVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product’s most valuable features are compliance, recommendations, and inventories."
"One valuable feature is the Microsoft Security Scorecard."
"The product's stability is very high...The scalability of the product is amazing."
"The solution helps identify threats and vulnerabilities."
"The solution is up-to-date and helps prevent zero-day attacks."
"When it comes to the process, installation is very easy and does not take long."
"The most important aspect of the solution is that it rarely gives false positives, especially compared to other products. It provides very clear reports for our IT teams to look at."
"I have been in contact with technical support and they are not bad."
"Rapid7 have a good distribution network with good support and market presence."
"When you connect any new device to the network, Rapid7 has the ability to detect the new device immediately. It can scan that device to detect if it has any vulnerability. It tells you what is vulnerable and what has been misconfigured. It also tells you what is the risk of that misconfiguration or lack of patches and how to resolve the problem."
"The performance is good."
"The most valuable features are its reporting capabilities and the host discovery functionality."
"I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps."
"The technical support takes too much time to resolve tickets."
"It is challenging to extract and customize reports from the system."
"Integration can be improved."
"The general support could be improved."
"The setup phase of the product is not that easy and needs a person to have a certain level of expertise."
"The product does not have the capability to do dynamic scanning of non-web applications."
"InsightVM could be improved by providing passive scanning as an option."
"The integration with other solutions like JIRA could be better. Perhaps there could be some additional updates in the next phase that could integrate with it, so then you can proceed with the VT much easier."
"They should improve the cybersecurity feature of the solution."
"A definite improvement would be to make it easier to run ad-hoc scans without needing to assign the asset to a site or group."
"InsightVM is getting a little stale and is in danger of falling behind its competitors."
"Rapid7 could be easier to manage."
"We'd like the agent to cover more compliance issues."
More Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is ranked 7th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 5 reviews while Rapid7 InsightVM is ranked 4th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 55 reviews. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is rated 8.2, while Rapid7 InsightVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management writes "The vulnerability assessment is very accurate because it runs directly into the vulnerability database". 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". Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Defender XDR, whereas Rapid7 InsightVM is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Wiz and Rapid7 InsightIDR. See our Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs. Rapid7 InsightVM report.
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.