We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Security Center 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 →
"This solution has a much lower rate of false positives compared to competing products."
"The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Tenable Security Center scans networks and gives reports."
"It basically reviews our threat landscape vulnerability."
"Tenable also helps us to focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. And since it is continuously updated, it allows us to reevaluate quickly if there are new vulnerabilities found..."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Tenable SC could improve by making the creation of the initial reports easier that correspond to our network."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
"The pricing is reasonable, but this could be brought down more aggressively, such as we see with Rapid7, Tenable SC's main competitor."
"Additional costs are associated with using the solution, as additional scanners are required for different endpoints connected to the Tenable Security Center. If Tenable Security Center could extract information from these scanners automatically rather than manually, it would enhance user-friendliness for customers."
"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."
"Tenable SC can improve by making it easier to create complicated reports and have more effectiveness in the remediation area for comparison between the scans."
"Support could be faster."
"We are facing some challenges related to our channel."
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 Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. 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 Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Brinqa and Avalor, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Recorded Future.
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.
