Most Helpful Review
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
The most valuable feature is anomaly detection, where it finds things that are not allowed internally.
Most of the engineers I've worked with have been really good. Very knowledgeable and easy to work with.
Being able to graph and show data to management has improved our organization. We can show the data to the higher-ups. It shows them that it's picking up on these anomalies and doing its job.
It's a dependable product that is able to pinpoint where we have vulnerabilities if they occur.
Using the Cognitive Analytics feature, we have complete visibility that we didn’t have before.
The most valuable feature about this solution is that it gives me insight of my network.
It has improved our internal knowledge of what's going on with the network, and that's helpful.
The most valuable features of this solution are the logging, keeping threats under control, and keeping our data and environment secure.
The first of the valuable features is how easy it is to access all of the information that's gathered from the assessments... With a lot of other technologies, like Rapid7, if you're using Nexpose you effectively have to be a DBA to get some of the lower-level results from the scans. And Qualys wasn't very intuitive.
The next big one is supportability. In a large enterprise, we have many types of technologies. The technology we previously had didn't even support authentication to a lot of those technologies.
The scanning itself is really the core of the tool, and it's what we're most interested in.
The usability of this solution needs to be improved.
We've run into some issues with the configuration.
They should include Citrix VDIs in the next release.
The GUI could use some improvement. Being able to find features more easily would be a great improvement if it was simplified.
The initial setup is complex, as there is a lot to configure.
It hasn't really improved our direct detection rate but it has definitely reduced our incident response time as we wouldn't have been able to detect threats or immediate risks without this solution.
I would like to see more and cleaner reporting. For example, if I pull up Steven and I want to look and maybe compare him to what you've done in the past week, and compare that to the past six months, the point would be to see what the difference in activity looks like over this time. I don't see that capability in reporting to date. You see that trend but you don't really see a straightforward comparison. That right there is key to what we want to see about the normal activity.
It is time-consuming to set it up and understand how the tool works.
When it comes to... dynamic application scanning, I think they are lagging behind the curve. They have a lackluster solution, to the point where I think they need to determine, as a company, whether or not that's a space they even want to play in.
There are certain circumstances where they may have found a vulnerable service and they just removed the service completely from the device because nobody was using it. There's no way to go into SecurityCenter and mark it, to say, "This is no longer an issue. It doesn't exist anymore." Or, "The risk was accepted for one year, so let's not report it as 'high' until that one year period is done." The handling of operational flow around vulnerability management could be improved.
Pricing and Cost Advice
Our fees are approximately $3,000 USD.
Licensing is on a yearly basis.
We pay for support costs on a yearly basis.
On a yearly basis, licensing is somewhere around $30,000.
The yearly licensing cost is about $50,000.
The pricing for this solution is good.
The licensing costs are outrageous.
Today, we are part of the big Cisco ELA, and it is a la carte. We can get orders for whatever we want. At the end of the day, we have to pay for it in one big expense, but that is fine. We are okay with that.
We did a three-year deal where the cost is amortized over the three years. The Elite Support was an additional cost to the standard licensing fees... If you use Security Center, most of the time it is on-premise, so you're going to have some sort of infrastructure to build out and there's going to be a cost associated with that.
out of 45 in Intrusion Detection and Prevention Software
Average Words per Review
out of 98 in Network Monitoring Software
Average Words per Review
Compared 25% of the time.
Compared 6% of the time.
Compared 4% of the time.
Compared 21% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 13% of the time.
Also Known As
|Cisco Stealthwatch Enterprise, Lancope StealthWatch||SecurityCenter Continuous View, SecurityCenter CV|
|Cisco||Tenable Network Security|
Cisco Stealthwatch uses NetFlow to provide visibility across the network, data center, branch offices, and cloud. Its advanced security analytics uncover stealthy attacks on the extended network. Stealthwatch helps you use your existing network as a security sensor and enforcer to dramatically improve your threat defense.
SecurityCenter Continuous View is the market-leading continuous network monitoring platform. It integrates SecurityCenter along with multiple Nessus Network Monitor sensors and Log Correlation Engine (LCE) to provide comprehensive continuous network monitoring.
Learn more about Cisco Stealthwatch
Learn more about Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View
|Edge Web Hosting, Telenor Norway, Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Webster Financial Corporation, Westinghouse Electric, VMware, TIAA-CREF||Methodist Healthcare Ministries|
Financial Services Firm14%
Comms Service Provider24%
Software R&D Company17%
No Data Available