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 →
"The solution scales well."
"Rapid7 InsightVM has given us a practical view of the vulnerabilities present in our organization."
"The solution is good because it has a lot of options."
"I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps."
"The most valuable features of Rapid7 InsightVM are the accurate level of scanning and the workflows are good."
"We can create our own templates."
"I like Rapid7's scan optimization options."
"I really love the new platform. It is really easy to understand, use, and deploy."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"The integration with other solutions like JIRA could be better. Perhaps there could be some additional updates in the next phase that could integrate with it, so then you can proceed with the VT much easier."
"There have been instances where technical support takes a long time to update the status of a ticket, which is something that can be improved."
"Patch management is the only missing feature I can think of. Rapid7 detects vulnerabilities, but it should also help you manage patches."
"There was functionality present previously, however, currently, we can't integrate directly with Jira Service Desk - only the cloud version."
"The reporting is a little bit tricky because it can be difficult to exactly pinpoint some of the assets to filter them and generate a report."
"There are not enough templates, and the reporting is weak with this solution."
"InsightVM is getting a little stale and is in danger of falling behind its competitors."
"Technical support does not respond quickly."
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.