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 allows us to concentrate solely on identified vulnerabilities without the hassle of additional setup."
"Rapid7 Metasploit is a useful product."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scripts, the modules, and the tools that the Rapid7 Metasploit framework has."
"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 is scalable. It's in line with our needs."
"The most valuable feature for us is the support for testing Linux-based web server components."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"I don't have any other tools like it, and I always use it when I'm doing a pen test. Metasploit is a great solution for penetration testing,"
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Rapid7 Metasploit could be made easier for new users to learn."
"The open-source version has reporting limitations. You need to develop these capabilities yourself. Built-in reporting is an excellent feature for penetration testing, but it isn't a must-have. The solution could also cover more vulnerabilities. Metasploit has around 10,000 exploits in its library, but more is always better."
"The initial setup was a bit "tweaky" for the open-source version."
"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."
"It is necessary to add some training materials and a tutorial for beginners."
"The solution is not user-friendly and has room for improvement."
"The solution should improve the responsiveness of its live technical support."
"Rapid7 Metasploit can add a GUI feature because it is only available online."
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 Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, 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.
