We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Security Center 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's a very useful tool."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"Their overall cost of service is pretty good."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"The product is our second solution, and we are happy that it meets our requirements."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"Has a great advanced scanning feature."
"Compliance and vulnerability scans are most valuable. Compliance scan helps in validating how our teams are complying, and vulnerability scan helps in future-proofing. Its vulnerability detection is accurate."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"The biggest issue I have with the solution is when I'm using the scanning it picks up the original DNS of that device. That means, before we image it and actually change the DNS to something within our company structure, it'll just be random numbers and letters and Tenable will stick to that DNS for a long time."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
"It's good at creating information, it's good creating dashboards, it's good at creating reports, but if you want to take that reporting metadata and put it into another tool, that is a little bit lacking."
"There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy."
"The solution needs to improve the vulnerability assessment because we have experienced some challenges with accuracy."
"We are facing some challenges related to our channel."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
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 Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center 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 Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Skybox Security Suite and Brinqa, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Recorded Future.
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.
