We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Rapid7 InsightVM 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 →
"I really love the new platform. It is really easy to understand, use, and deploy."
"The reports in Rapid7 InsightVM are useful when compared to competitors."
"It's very scalable."
"It is stable and scalable."
"NeXpose is a pretty good vulnerability scanner... There's a nice dashboard."
"The performance is good."
"Rapid7 have a good distribution network with good support and market presence."
"I have been in contact with technical support and they are not bad."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"There is a significant learning curve, that non-technical individuals, especially those not specialized in computer science or the information security industry, might face."
"It is still not a fully cloud-based solution. It will be helpful for customers if it is a complete cloud solution. It is a hybrid solution at the moment."
"In terms of improvements, its price could be better. Our main issue with Rapid7 is that it is too expensive. You can only sell it to enterprise accounts. In terms of new features, Rapid7 came up with a product called InsightIDR a couple of years ago, which is a good SIEM solution. We expect that Rapid7 will work on some sort of integration between InsightVM and InsightIDR, where vulnerability or anomaly detected by InsightVM can be reported in InsightIDR in some sort of real-time. Rapid7 doesn't patch. For example, if you have a vulnerability, some products can scan and also do the patching, but Rapid7 does not do the patching. It would be nice if it can also patch."
"I would like to see more integration."
"The solution should include a tighter integration with third-party threat modeling and threat intelligence tools."
"There are end-user needs and expectations that are being overlooked in the development that could be addressed by appointing a customer advisory board."
"One area I would like to improve in InsightVM is its integration with other solutions."
"The product does not have the capability to do dynamic scanning of non-web applications."
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 Rapid7 InsightVM is ranked 4th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 55 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 InsightVM is rated 8.0. 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 Rapid7 InsightVM writes "You can scan a network, and receive recommendations to address vulnerabilities with the click of a button". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Brinqa and Avalor, whereas Rapid7 InsightVM is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Lacework.
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.