We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Security Center 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 stability is very high...The scalability of the product is amazing."
"The product’s most valuable features are compliance, recommendations, and inventories."
"One valuable feature is the Microsoft Security Scorecard."
"The solution is up-to-date and helps prevent zero-day attacks."
"The solution helps identify threats and vulnerabilities."
"The solution has a lean and easy-to-use interface that is not confusing to first-time users."
"The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs."
"I find Tenable SC to be a very scalable product."
"Tenable SC's most valuable features are the low number of false positives and the strong capability of providing prioritization for the vulnerabilities detected."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are scanning, reporting, dashboards, and automation."
"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."
"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..."
"The scanning part, the agent part – that's the valuable aspect."
"Integration can be improved."
"The setup phase of the product is not that easy and needs a person to have a certain level of expertise."
"The general support could be improved."
"The technical support takes too much time to resolve tickets."
"It is challenging to extract and customize reports from the system."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"We experienced some difficulties with the solution’s support."
"The solution is expensive."
"The solution's user interface has some issues."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
"Security can always be improved."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
More Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is ranked 8th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 5 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is rated 8.2, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Amazon Inspector, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Horizon3.ai. See our Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management vendors and best 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.
