We performed a comparison between Brinqa and RSA Archer 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 most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
"From my perspective, because I've always done it as a consultant, I do like the way it is configured. They've gone into changing the application builder interface, so it is even easier. When you're working with users, it is really easy to show them how to do things quickly and how to configure, change, and design stuff quickly."
"RSA Archer is a good tool and I have found performing the application, ISMS, and TPRM assessments beneficial."
"The Advance Workflow feature simplifies things."
"RSA Archer has reduced the time and effort required for meetings."
"I like how Archer requires very little programming ability. A person with minimum coding experience can configure the necessary fields in Archer. It's more of a drag-and-drop solution."
"Its user interface is pretty neat, and there is flexibility in generating the data. You can customize reports at any level. You can directly get reports in Tableau format. If you want to generate statistical data, you can create reports with graphs. There is an adequate amount of flexibility for changing the format, the type of graphs, etc."
"Enables development of any application, automation of any workflow including the GRC work processes."
"With RSA Archer, an admin can set permissions for a normal user to go directly to the tool they need to input some data. Admins can then go through that and approve some requests. Also, they can log in based on these kinds of permissions, including ticketing, service patches, or upgrades."
"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
"There are certain restrictions on API integrations, and it is not simple or straightforward."
"The solution as a whole could be simplified."
"The design and advanced workflow need to be improved."
"Slow turnaround time from support team."
"Archer could be improved by having more customization. I'm not sure if the backend processes have API calls and those kinds of seamless integrations, but from the front, some of the solutions are very out-of-the-box. It's not customizable, so that could be a little problematic since you have to use their features. In terms of the backend structure, I'm not too sure because I'm not a developer—I was an end user and product owner of Archer—and I don't quite know the backend and developmental features. But since it's an out-of-the-box solution, sometimes customization was challenging and support was a little problematic because we had to reach out to them all the time."
"RSA Archer's best features are advanced workflow, reports, dashboards, and notifications."
"When we have to do formulas or some other type of calculation in Archer, it sometimes doesn't work correctly. The fields don't display right, and we have to contact RSA Archer support to fix things. I think the calculation components are a bit complicated."
"There are some issues with the interface for version 6.5 but these may already be repaired and simplified in the new versions that have been released."
Brinqa is ranked 11th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while RSA Archer is ranked 1st in GRC with 38 reviews. Brinqa is rated 7.0, while RSA Archer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Brinqa writes "Allows us to configure the risk algorithm to suit our specific needs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA Archer writes "A rich application with good workflow, but search feature needs improvement". Brinqa is most compared with Vulcan Cyber, Axonius, Nucleus, Avalor and Tenable Nessus, whereas RSA Archer is most compared with OneTrust GRC, IBM OpenPages, MetricStream, Workiva Wdesk and AuditBoard.
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.