We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Rapid7 Metasploit 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 →
"It contains almost all the available exploits and payloads."
"I use Rapid7 Metasploit for payload generation and Post-Exploitation."
"The Search Engineering feature is good."
"The solution is open source and has many small targetted penetration tests that have been written by many people that are useful. You can choose different subjects for the test, such as Oracle databases or Apache servers."
"It allows us to concentrate solely on identified vulnerabilities without the hassle of additional setup."
"Rapid7 Metasploit is a useful product."
"The option to generate phishing emails has proven to be very valuable in understanding the behavior of users."
"All of the features are great."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Better automation capabilities would be an improvement."
"It is necessary to add some training materials and a tutorial for beginners."
"There are numerous outdated exploits in their database that should be updated."
"I would like to see more capabilities, more functions, and more features. More types of attack vectors."
"The solution is not user-friendly and has room for improvement."
"Rapid7 Metasploit can add a GUI feature because it is only available online."
"If your company's patch is not up to date, but you have other detection or defense solutions such as endpoint detection and response and antivirus software, the product exploit may not work effectively. This is because its exploit database update process is slow and not real-time. For zero-day vulnerabilities or new security threats, relying on Rapid7 Metasploit alone may not be effective."
"At the time I was using it, the graphical user interface needed some improvements."
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 Rapid7 Metasploit is ranked 11th in Vulnerability Management with 18 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 Metasploit is rated 7.6. 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 Rapid7 Metasploit writes "Helps find vulnerabilities in a system to determine whether the system needs to be upgraded". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Skybox Security Suite, whereas Rapid7 Metasploit is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Pentera, Rapid7 InsightVM, Acunetix and Nucleus.
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.
