We performed a comparison between Cisco SecureX and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Vulnerability Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Our customers find the product's third-party integrations valuable. Our customers are also impressed with the tool's capability to pick up third-party threat feeds and use that as part of the decision-making process."
"Integrates well with our existing security infrastructure."
"The forensics are amazing because when you have enrichment, and the solutions talk with each other, when you need it, you have the ability to know everything in the organization: when, why, whatever."
"SecureX takes all the separate pieces of security within your company, adds in intelligence from different sites and services on the internet, and makes them work together."
"I like that I don't have to jump around to five different products and log into five different places to view the data that it returns."
"SecureX enables us to have all the threat intelligence and threat event data in one place."
"The automation and orchestration tools are the most valuable features."
"Using SecureX, a tool provided by Cisco, we can easily integrate it with many of our other Cisco products such as Cisco ISE and many networking devices."
"Tenable is the leading product for vulnerability scanning."
"It's a very useful tool."
"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."
"The solution has a lean and easy-to-use interface that is not confusing to first-time users."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"I like Tenable.sc's analytics and reporting. You can also configure your on-prem network monitors to talk to your Tenable.sc control panel."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"The automation and orchestration could be simpler. It could be that all the other parts are that easy to use so that these stick out as a negative, but that's the trickiest part for us. The workflows within the orchestration are just a bit more difficult."
"They could put in more third-party [integrations]... also more playbooks, out-of-the-box, for automation [would be helpful]."
"what's missing right now is the multi-tenant capability."
"One of the improvements the product needs is more integration with collaboration platforms."
"I'm not sure that I would call it a bug, but sometimes the solution is a little slow."
"Remediation stuff could be integrated into the product's automation."
"The front-end work controls the new algorithm and the firewall rules. The search feature of these rules could be improved."
"They could expand into more areas. The more third-parties that we have tied into it, the better. The capabilities are there. As they just continue to involve the product, the more things that you can look into, then the more analytics that you can get. Also, the more data that we can get, then the better off we will be."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"A good plugin editor would be a good additional option for the Security Center."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"The user interface can be improved."
"Tenable's reporting engine needs improvement. It needs to be more efficient and add more features."
Cisco SecureX is ranked 13th in Vulnerability Management with 13 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco SecureX is rated 9.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco SecureX writes "Gives our customers visibility and they don't have to go multiple management consoles anymore". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco SecureX is most compared with Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Trend Vision One, Splunk SOAR and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Horizon3.ai. See our Cisco SecureX vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all 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.