We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Tenable.sc based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.sc provides precise identification of vulnerabilities, compliance and vulnerability scans, and a risk-oriented methodology. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub receives commendation for its integration capabilities, immediate alerts, and thorough notifications regarding potential compliance concerns. Tenable.sc and AWS Security Hub both have areas where they could improve. Tenable.sc needs to work on their penetration testing, pricing, ticketing, GUI, reporting, vendor training, and accuracy of vulnerability assessments. AWS Security Hub requires more integration options, better UI, multi-cloud compatibility, faster updates, and easier configuration.
Service and Support: Tenable.sc's customer service has received mixed feedback, with varying levels of helpfulness. In comparison, AWS Security Hub's support is praised for being prompt and good.
Ease of Deployment: Tenable.sc's initial setup is praised for being simple and quick, with the cloud version taking only one day and the on-prem version taking two to three weeks. Meanwhile, AWS Security Hub's setup is also considered easy, though it does involve policy configuration and some upkeep.
Pricing: Tenable.sc charges based on the number of IP addresses and has mixed opinions on pricing, while AWS Security Hub has reasonable pricing.
ROI: Tenable.sc is cost-effective and offers a guaranteed ROI with a significant reduction in manpower costs. In contrast, AWS Security Hub does not provide the same level of value, despite offering a positive outcome.
Comparison Results: Tenable.sc is seen as the superior choice when compared to AWS Security Hub by users. This is due to its extensive features, including accurate vulnerability detection, compliance and vulnerability scans, and a risk-based approach. Tenable.sc also provides advanced scanning, asset discovery, and scoring, which are not found in AWS Security Hub. Although AWS Security Hub is praised for its integration capabilities and real-time alerts, Tenable.sc's analysis, prioritization, and usability features make it a more valuable tool for vulnerability analysis and remediation progress tracking.
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The CSPM module has been the most effective. It was easy to deploy and covered all our accounts through APIs, requiring no agents. Wiz provides instant visibility into high-level risks that we need to address."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"I like that AWS Security Hub currently has several good features, around four or five. The technical support for AWS Security Hub is also responsive."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scanning of all the cloud environments and most of the compliances available in the cloud."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"Tenable.sc is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of the product is the Assurance Report Card, which gives us an overview of the security poster in just a simple glance."
"The solution is completely stable and operation is user-friendly."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"The feature we've liked most recently was being able to take the YARA rules from FireEye and put them into Tenable's scan for the most recent SolarWinds exploit. That was really useful."
"Compliance and vulnerability scans are most valuable. Compliance scan helps in validating how our teams are complying, and vulnerability scan helps in future-proofing. Its vulnerability detection is accurate."
"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"The reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"We would like to see improvements to executive-level reporting and data reporting in general, which we understand is being rolled out to the platform."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"It's not user-friendly. Too much going on, too many unnecessary findings, not very visual. You can't do much compared to other similar tools that are cheaper and better."
"The telemetry doesn't always go into the control center. When you have multiple instances running in AWS, you need a control tower to take feeds from Security Hub and analyze your results. Sometimes exemptions aren't passed between the control tower and Security Hub. The configuration gets mixed up or you don't get the desired results."
"Although AWS Security Hub does a periodic scan of your overall infrastructure, it doesn't do it in real time."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"The solution lacks self-sufficiency."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"The solution should include compliance-based scanning."
"The solution needs to improve the vulnerability assessment because we have experienced some challenges with accuracy."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"The solution is expensive."
"In terms of configuration, there is some level of flexibility that we are not able to achieve."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"The web application is not very functional."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 10th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 48 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Google Chronicle Suite and Wazuh, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.