We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Qualys VMDR 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 →
"Qualys VM has allowed us to know the vulnerabilities we need to prioritize based on the threat levels and the possible impact if there's an intrusion."
"The reporting functionality is great."
"Qualys VM is very stable."
"Qualys has a continuous endpoint monitoring feature for agent-based scanning. Once you deploy the solution, it monitors everything that is happening every 30 minutes. Then, if there are any vulnerabilities, they are reported."
"Provides great functionality."
"They also have threat detection which maps threats. There is a feed that comes from Qualys when a new vulnerability is found. It tells us which machines are infected with that vulnerability."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability scanning, policy compliance scanning, and tablet for web application scanning."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Endpoint stability and fault resolution could be improved."
"The reporting in this solution can be improved."
"There seems to be a lack of easy onboarding into Qualys."
"The ability to manage user accounts and give rights to the operator to know about abnormalities of applications is something that needs improvement."
"The only improvement I can think of is on the implementation side. At times it is a bit slow."
"The customer support is very bad."
"Integration could be better. When you think about scanning, it's not used just with this product alone but with other Qualys products. If you think about the bundle, the product itself is good. But integration with other products and packages has space for improvement. They should also offer a better price for bundles."
"The price could be better. Asset view is still a legacy feature. I'm not able to extract the information about the asset with complete details. It would be better if they fixed that in the next release. I know Qualys is already working on it, so I'm hopeful it will be available in the next five or six months. That would be something that's changed where I seek improvement."
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 Qualys VMDR is ranked 3rd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 77 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Qualys VMDR 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 Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Skybox Security Suite and Brinqa, whereas Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management.
See our list of best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management vendors.
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.