We performed a comparison between Microsoft Intune and Tenable Nessus based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Tenable Nessus has a slight edge in this comparison. According to its reviewers, it is easier to deploy than Microsoft Intune.
"It has a useful device management feature."
"Its security is most valuable. It gives us a way to secure devices, not only those that are steady. We do have a few tablets and other devices, and it is a way for us to secure these devices and manage them. We know they're out there and what's their status. We can manage their life cycle and verify that they're updated properly."
"The tool's most valuable feature is Autopilot."
"At the moment, Autopilot is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Intune is the central dashboard for compliance and policy management."
"One of the best features is Windows Autopilot because if you change any of your devices, whatever security policies and compliance policies that applied can be easily migrated to the new devices. Windows Autopilot gives you that flexibility."
"The stability is good."
"I like its ease of use. It has the script that is pre-built in it, and you just got to know which ones you're looking for."
"Quick assessments, compliance scores, and results are provided without having to do agents."
"Once you get past the initial implementation, the solution is very stable."
"It also has an executive report where you don't have to provide the client all the detail for them to sift though. But if they wish to dig through the detail they can."
"The stability is very good."
"Scanners and reports using CIS templates ("de-facto" standard, easy to fix and to locate correction tips at documentation), tests against cloud providers, database profiles, several types of telecom devices, and others highly customizable scans."
"It does exactly what you expect it to do, and its pricing is great. We couldn't really ask for a better deal."
"The results are not that bad, but the key selling point is that it is an affordable tool set."
"There are some issues using the solution with macOS and iOS, and it offers limited granular control with them. Intune works better on Windows and Android."
"Areas for improvement in Intune include expanding support beyond Samsung devices to accommodate other Android manufacturers like Redmi and Motorola."
"Intune doesn't provide much control over Windows servers. It's something we struggle with."
"There could be more wizard-driven policy development or creation. Some of the policies can get quite complex. If they have a wizard that assists the administrators in creating the policy, that will be a great job."
"One big problem with Microsoft is that they're changing the names of the products quite often, or they're quite consistently doing so. Intune is now Endpoint administration. Constantly switching the user interface or the administrative interface makes it quite hard to keep pace. If you are on a two-week holiday and you come back and look at the same screen you have looked at for the last couple of months, it looks different, which is annoying. Changing things around all the time doesn't make it easy."
"Reporting in Microsoft solutions is pathetic. With Intune, I'm getting a free inventory tool, but I don't get a reporting tool. When I go to Intune, I can see one machine's entire data in terms of the hardware and the software running on it, but I cannot generate a report for all the machines in the organization. The reporting is the only feature holding back the functionality that is already there."
"There is room for improvement in integration and security as well."
"Onboarding of endpoint devices is not straightforward. The onboarding process was a little heavier than I thought it would be. That's the key improvement area. Obviously, the more control you have over the devices, the better it is."
"Model OS costs (and its segregation schema for individual modules)."
"The interface is a little bit clunky, and the reporting is not marvelous. There should be better integration of reporting between instances. Currently, the instance stands alone, and it produces a report. Being able to amalgamate those reports with another instance will be useful."
"Tenable Nessus could improve reporting and information sharing. It would be helpful if we could share the reports and have a little bit better flexibility in the reporting of the data."
"We would like to have the option of using the solution for the cloud as well as on-premises with the same license at the same time. That would be very helpful."
"The reports should be improved in Tenable Nessus. For example, when you are auditing compliance with CIS standards. It provides very poor reports."
"Scans aren't done properly and some devices aren't pinged."
"Consumes more system resources when it's running."
"The product must be more comprehensive."
Microsoft Intune is ranked 1st in Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) with 164 reviews while Tenable Nessus is ranked 3rd in Vulnerability Management with 75 reviews. Microsoft Intune is rated 8.0, while Tenable Nessus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Intune writes "We can manage all aspects of our devices from a single console, easy to scale, and quick to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Nessus writes "Unlimited assets for one price and quick, agentless results". Microsoft Intune is most compared with Jamf Pro, VMware Workspace ONE, ManageEngine Endpoint Central, SOTI MobiControl and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas Tenable Nessus is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Tenable Vulnerability Management and ManageEngine Vulnerability Manager Plus.
We monitor all Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) 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.