We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Nessus based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management."The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"The most valuable features are that it's fast, it's easy to use and it provides good reports."
"Tenable Nessus is one of the best vulnerability assessment tools, that I know."
"Makes ransomware checking and OS auditing and implementation relatively easy."
"It provides multiple recommendations towards the remedy of vulnerabilities."
"Tenable Nessus has a good performance, is very user-friendly, and is easy to use."
"The product's most valuable features are vulnerability and asset management. It can define the rules and validate the configuration."
"The initial setup of Tenable Nessus is very easy."
"The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is the support it provides for any new vulnerabilities quickly."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Some things in the user interface could be better. The user interface could allow more adjustments to plugins. The price could also be better."
"The professional version is not very scalable."
"One area that has room for improvement is the reporting. I'm preparing reports for Windows and Linux machines, etc. Currently, I'm collecting three or four reports and turning them into one report. I don't know if it is possible to combine all of them in one report, but that would be helpful."
"Tenable Nessus could improve by having more steady updates which will reduce the vulnerabilities."
"Technically, it is an excellent and the best solution available in Libya. My only concern is related to its pricing. They are an emerging company in Libya, and they need to put in some effort to provide us with very good prices so that customers can go with the best solution. Chinese companies are getting into the market here, and they're providing very cheap solutions."
"The scalability of Tenable Nessus is good. However, it could be more flexible."
"It would be a good idea if they have a simulation of attacks or a use case for finding a new vulnerability or dealing with a zero-day attack."
"There is room, overall, for improvement in the way it groups the workstations and the way it detects, when the vulnerability is scanned. Even when we would run a new scan, if it was an already existing vulnerability, it wouldn't put a new date on it."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 11th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Tenable Nessus is ranked 3rd in Vulnerability Management with 75 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Nessus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Nessus writes "Unlimited assets for one price and quick, agentless results". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Tenable Vulnerability Management, whereas Tenable Nessus is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Pentera.
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.