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 solution is quite friendly."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"It's a recommended tool for penetration testers because it's effective for that purpose."
"The initial setup is mostly straightforward."
"The tool has an easy-to-use interface."
"The most valuable feature for me is container scanning because I am interested in CICD security."
"It helps us create remediation projects and assign the console’s responsibility to specific engineers."
"The product is easy to use."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"They need to have more dependable and faster support."
"Another area of improvement is customer service and support. Tenable needs to include support in the pricing/license. Currently, they push clients to get support from partners or channel distributors, who often charge a lot."
"The user interface could be improved by being able to change the user interface to fit your position or your job. The graphs are set in stone and you can only print reports."
"Users get confused between VPR and CVSS ratings."
"It's not a user-friendly tool since it has a complicated interface."
"It can have more integration."
"The solution is a bit slow."
"More flexibility is required compared to other solutions."
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 38 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 Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, 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.