We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Vulnerability Management 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 →
"A new user can easily understand the workflow, even if they are creating users for other divisions and the user is a beginner."
"You can customize each point in new scans."
"The solution is very simple to use."
"I would rate Tenable's dashboards and reporting capabilities for illustrating security posture a nine out of ten, with ten being the best."
"The solution's most valuable feature is providing a single pane of visibility on all the infrastructure and its status."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The dashboard is pretty intuitive, and it lets you do a drill-down analysis of each vulnerability. That is something that brings a lot of value to the organization."
"The vulnerability scanning is the most important aspect of the solution for us."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"The solution seems to focus too much on enterprises, and they really need a product that works for SMBs."
"The solution must be promoted more in the market."
"The price could be lower."
"The reporting was never great in Tenable Vulnerability Management, so, in my company, we imported all the data into Ivanti RiskSense to start using it for reporting."
"The initial setup is complex and has room for improvement."
"The solution must provide penetration testing."
"I would like the solution to cover the whole cycle of mitigation since it's an area where the solution currently lacks."
"Another area of improvement is customer service and support. Tenable needs to include support in the pricing/license. Currently, they push clients to get support from partners or channel distributors, who often charge a lot."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 11th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Tenable Vulnerability Management is ranked 2nd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 38 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Vulnerability Management 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 Vulnerability Management writes "Discovers vulnerabilities and integrates well with other solutions". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Snyk, whereas Tenable Vulnerability Management is most compared with Tenable Security Center, Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Amazon Inspector and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management.
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.
