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 →
"The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis."
"The product is our second solution, and we are happy that it meets our requirements."
"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."
"Tenable is the leading product for vulnerability scanning."
"Tenable's most valuable features are the credential scan, vulnerability reports, and vulnerability ratings (VPR)."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Compared to other products, the most valuable features of the solution are its ease of use and ability to provide visibility over scan results while providing many templates to users, making it a helpful tool."
"The most valuable feature of the product is the Assurance Report Card, which gives us an overview of the security poster in just a simple glance."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"The tool's initial configuration is not so easy."
"Security can always be improved."
"Additional costs are associated with using the solution, as additional scanners are required for different endpoints connected to the Tenable Security Center. If Tenable Security Center could extract information from these scanners automatically rather than manually, it would enhance user-friendliness for customers."
"For downloading reports, we have to go to the scan and then we have to go to the reports and download the Excel or CSV or PDF. I think these menus and clicks can be minimized."
"The solution needs to improve its support. I would like to see a bird's eye view of my network architecture. I would also like to see the continuous view feature in the tool."
"Though the solution's technical support is responsive, they do take a lot of time, making it one of the solution's shortcomings that needs improvement."
"The solution is expensive."
"The solution should include compliance-based scanning."
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 "Reliable, useful reports, but initial report configuration could improve". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, 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.
