We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Vulnerability Management 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 initial setup is mostly straightforward."
"One of the most valuable features of Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is its exportability, which allows us to conduct risk assessments efficiently."
"It helps us create remediation projects and assign the console’s responsibility to specific engineers."
"The most valuable feature for me is container scanning because I am interested in CICD security."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is an easy-to-use product. I"
"The solution is quite friendly."
"It is a very, very user-friendly tool...The setup is easy"
"The solution is very simple to use."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"An area of improvement for this solution is being able to customize the dashboard. For example, the dashboard does not allow us to view a previous months vulnerability results alongside current results to make comparisons."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"The one drawback that we have found is the reports."
"I'd like to see them improve their support."
"The solution must provide penetration testing."
"The reporting was never great in Tenable Vulnerability Management, so, in my company, we imported all the data into Ivanti RiskSense to start using it for reporting."
"The solution seems to focus too much on enterprises, and they really need a product that works for SMBs."
"Tenable could improve visibility into assets, including automated asset tagging. You should be able to automatically tag assets based on location, function, ownership, etc. That would help us because we spend a lot of time identifying and tagging assets by hand."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 10th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Tenable Vulnerability Management is ranked 2nd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 36 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Vulnerability Management 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 Tenable Vulnerability Management writes "Discovers vulnerabilities and integrates well with other solutions". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Cisco SecureX, whereas Tenable Vulnerability Management is most compared with Tenable Security Center, Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Amazon Inspector and Microsoft Defender 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.
