We performed a comparison between Datadog and Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Zabbix, Datadog, Auvik and others in Network Monitoring Software."We can manage the entire system across the network and troubleshoot the pain points."
"They have a very good foundation in capturing metrics, logs, and traces. It's a very nice tool for that and it allows you to apply these monitoring tools in almost any technology."
"The tools are powerful and intuitive to set up."
"The solution is useful for monitoring logs."
"The observability on offer is the most useful aspect of the product."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the APM."
"It is easy to implement and scale applications with standardized visibility, monitoring and alerting"
"Because of our client focus, it is easy for us to sell. This is because it is easy to use and easy to set up."
"We have a better grasp of what is occurring during the deployment cycle. If something fails, we have an idea what has failed, where it has failed, and how it failed to better mitigate the situation."
"The scanning itself is really the core of the tool, and it's what we're most interested in."
"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 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."
"We can manage everything with only a single console on the Tenable SecurityCenter. We can pull and define the policy. We can perform every task on the Tenable SecurityCenter."
"Through porting, we can see how the improvement is happening over a period of time. We can see the overall scenario from the last year, where were we were and where we currently stand."
"The Wi-Fi side needs improvement."
"We need more advanced querying against logs."
"The incident management beta looks promising, but it is still missing the ability to automatically create incidents based on certain alerts."
"More pre-configured "Monitor Alerts" would be helpful."
"It can be overwhelming for new people as it has a lot of features."
"I found the solution to be stable, I did not experience any bugs or glitches. However, some of the managing team did."
"One area where I was really looking for improvement was the CSPM product line. I had really wanted to have team-level visibility for findings, since the team managing the resources has much more context and ability to resolve the issue, as the service owner. However, this has been added to the announcement in a recent keynote."
"I would like better navigability across pages."
"While I like the ease of use, when compared with Tenable Nessus they could still improve their usability."
"In terms of what could be improved, some customers have a problem with SecurityCenter's ticket system. If I want them to assign one of the issues, they may want to assign someone to it or to assign it somewhere else and I may want to break up the ticket."
"One area which is missing is cloud security because there are a lot of configurations. Rapid7 has a product called a DV cloud. I would like to have a similar kind of solution and feature."
"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."
"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."
More Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Datadog is ranked 2nd in Network Monitoring Software with 137 reviews while Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Network Monitoring Software. Datadog is rated 8.6, while Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] writes "Provides the best network-based vulnerability scanning, but the dynamic scanning is lackluster". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and AppDynamics, whereas Tenable SecurityCenter Continuous View [EOL] is most compared with .
See our list of best Network Monitoring Software vendors.
We monitor all Network Monitoring Software 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.