We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Snyk 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 most valuable features of Snyk are vulnerability scanning and automation. The automation the solution brings around vulnerability scanning is useful."
"Snyk performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools."
"The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing."
"We're loving some of the Kubernetes integration as well. That's really quite cool. It's still in the early days of our use of it, but it looks really exciting. In the Kubernetes world, it's very good at reporting on the areas around the configuration of your platform, rather than the things that you've pulled in. There's some good advice there that allows you to prioritize whether something is important or just worrying. That's very helpful."
"The solution's Open Source feature gives us notifications and suggestions regarding how to address vulnerabilities."
"Snyk is a good and scalable tool."
"I find SCA to be valuable. It can read your libraries, your license and bring the best way to resolve your problem in the best scenario."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Snyk's API and UI features could work better in terms of speed."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"We use Bamboo for CI.CD, and we had problems integrating Snyk with it. Ultimately, we got the two solutions to work together, but it was difficult."
"One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs."
"The tool needs improvement in license compliance. I would like to see the integration of better policy management in the product's future release. When it comes to the organization that I work for, there are a lot of business units since we are a group of companies. Each of these companies has its specific requirements and its own appetite for risk. This should be able to reflect in flexible policies. We need to be able to configure policies that can be adjusted later or overridden by the business unit that is using the product."
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
"Scalability has some issues because we have a lot of code and its use is mandatory. Therefore, it can be slow at times, especially because there are a lot of projects and reporting. Some UI improvements could help with this."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 10th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Snyk is ranked 4th in Application Security Tools with 41 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Snyk is rated 8.2. 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Tanium, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security.
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.