We compared Qualys VMDR and Tenable Vulnerability Management based on our users reviews in six parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Users generally find the setup process for Qualys VMDR to be easy and fast, taking only a few minutes. However, there are some integration issues with other systems. In contrast, setting up Tenable Vulnerability Management can be time-consuming, ranging from a couple of hours to a few weeks. Some users find it difficult to configure IP ranges and firewall settings.
Qualys VMDR offers a prioritization mechanism, continuous monitoring, a customizable dashboard, and a comprehensive overview of vulnerabilities. On the other hand, Tenable Vulnerability Management provides complete visibility, scalability, and a user-friendly dashboard for vulnerability analysis.
Both Qualys VMDR and Tenable Vulnerability Management have areas that require improvement. Qualys VMDR could benefit from enhancements in user experience, UI design, SLA tracking, batch prioritization, integration, reporting, and dashboards. On the other hand, Tenable Vulnerability Management needs improvements in visibility, support, dashboards, integration, reporting, pricing, user interface, and automation.
The cost of setting up Qualys VMDR can be high for smaller customers, as it varies depending on the specific features needed. Some reviewers mentioned that additional fees are required for features like patch management and EDR policy compliance. In contrast, Tenable Vulnerability Management has a pricing model that varies among users, which some users did not find ideal. While basic vulnerability scanning and management have no hidden costs, the overall cost can be relatively expensive compared to other solutions.
Qualys VMDR is praised for its ability to effectively reduce risks and mitigate cybersecurity threats, resulting in a good return on investment. On the other hand, Tenable Vulnerability Management is acknowledged for providing long-term value and identifying vulnerabilities, although not everyone experiences a significant return on investment.
The feedback for Qualys VMDR's customer service varies, with some customers appreciating the support provided, while others highlight the need for quicker response times and more knowledgeable staff. Similarly, Tenable Vulnerability Management's customer service has received mixed reviews, with certain users expressing dissatisfaction regarding issue resolution and turnaround time, while others commend the team's round-the-clock availability and promptness.
Comparison Results
In comparing Qualys VMDR to Tenable Vulnerability Management, both solutions have easy initial setups and offer comprehensive vulnerability management. Qualys VMDR provides a prioritization mechanism, continuous monitoring, and great technical support. It also has a customizable dashboard. However, it lacks user-friendliness, integration with other systems, and needs improvement in reporting and dashboards. On the other hand, Tenable Vulnerability Management offers complete visibility, is considered reliable and cost-effective, and has a user-friendly dashboard. It also provides efficient risk assessments. However, it lacks coverage of the entire vulnerability management process and needs improvements in support, pricing, and user interface customization.
"The most valuable feature is the ability to run different capabilities with the same agent. With only one agent, we can have EDR, vulnerability management, compliance and some basic SaaS security capabilities."
"Vulnerability management is the most valuable one and it’s a must in every organization."
"The integrations for this solution are very good. I use a different product for virtual patching of vulnerabilities and Qualys integrates well with that product."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"The most valuable feature is the connection of threat intelligence information with identified vulnerabilities, which means you can prioritize vulnerabilities according to actual attacks."
"They also have threat detection which maps threats. There is a feed that comes from Qualys when a new vulnerability is found. It tells us which machines are infected with that vulnerability."
"It is a stable solution."
"The reporting functionality is great."
"It is quite straightforward to set up."
"The solution can integrate with third parties and meets standard compliance."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is an easy-to-use product. I"
"The solution is easy to use and configuration is smooth with no complexities."
"It is easy to manage. Most of the information the tool provided helped to further investigate the vulnerability and its impact."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The interface is fine."
"The most valuable feature for me is container scanning because I am interested in CICD security."
"The solution is a bit expensive if you do not have access to discounts."
"Some of the older features could be polished instead of focusing on releasing new features."
"Sometimes the scanning can get overwhelmed and start to drag when a lot of users are trying to scan at once."
"Qualys could improve the inbuilt dashboards."
"The disadvantage of working with Qualys is that the graphical interface is quite outdated."
"The only improvement I can think of is on the implementation side. At times it is a bit slow."
"The reporting needs improvement. It should generate much more stuff like field reports."
"Qualys could be improved in its overall performance compared to other vulnerability management or scanning tools."
"The solution is a bit slow."
"The product could be easier to set up on the cloud."
"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."
"They should include better customization of the dashboard, and integration tools."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"The tool's reports are bad. They're not very customizable or flexible. During audits, we often have to exclude things that aren't relevant to our organization, but we can't do that easily with the reports. They come in HTML or PDF format, and we can't compare current results with previous ones in Excel because we never receive reports in Excel."
"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."
"The solution seems to focus too much on enterprises, and they really need a product that works for SMBs."
More Tenable Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Qualys VMDR is ranked 3rd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 77 reviews while Tenable Vulnerability Management is ranked 2nd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 38 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Tenable Vulnerability Management is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Vulnerability Management writes "Discovers vulnerabilities and integrates well with other solutions". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, whereas Tenable Vulnerability Management is most compared with Tenable Security Center, Tenable Nessus, Amazon Inspector, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Rapid7 InsightVM. See our Qualys VMDR vs. Tenable Vulnerability Management report.
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.
