We performed a comparison between Skyhigh Security and Tenable.sc based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.sc excels in vulnerability detection, prioritization, and automation accuracy. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security boasts strong URL spam filtering, endpoint protection, and efficient backup features. While Skyhigh lacks SD-WAN, it is a market leader with good technical support and pricing. Tenable.sc has room for improvement in penetration testing, pricing, GUI, reporting, and support accuracy. Meanwhile, Skyhigh Security has deficiencies in support for unsanctioned apps, API integration, pricing, UI, reporting, and backup processes.
Service and Support: Tenable.sc's customer service is uncomplicated with varying satisfaction levels in response times and quality depending on the region. Skyhigh Security's support quality is dependent on the technician and subscription plan with mixed reviews on response times.
Ease of Deployment: Tenable.sc has a straightforward and easy initial setup that can be completed in a day, while Skyhigh Security's setup varies in difficulty and can take anywhere from five minutes to two weeks. Tenable.sc's setup is positively rated, while Skyhigh Security's setup is a mix of straightforward and complex.
Pricing: Tenable.sc charges based on IP addresses and extra fees for support, with differing opinions on pricing. Skyhigh Security has mixed reviews on pricing and licensing, with some finding it expensive and others reasonable, but the hardware is noted as pricey.
ROI: Tenable.sc promises to decrease personnel expenses and ensure a favorable ROI, while Skyhigh Security enhances security measures, reduces the likelihood of data breaches, and improves reputation.
Comparison Results: Tenable.sc is the preferred choice over Skyhigh Security based on the advanced features it offers, including compliance and vulnerability scans, accurate detection, and a risk-based approach. It also provides quick and precise updates, fewer false positives, and more accurate reports.
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"The CSPM module has been the most effective. It was easy to deploy and covered all our accounts through APIs, requiring no agents. Wiz provides instant visibility into high-level risks that we need to address."
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"I like Wiz's reporting, and it's easy to do queries. For example, it's pretty simple to find out how many servers we have and the applications installed on each. I like Wiz's security graph because you can use it to see the whole organization even if you have multiple accounts."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"User analytics."
"What's most valuable in Skyhigh Security is its level of security. Another valuable feature of the solution is threat analysis."
"It is easy to configure rules."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"Overall, the performance is good."
"Without Skyhigh, we had zero visibility, but now we are aware of so much more."
"The risk rating of each cloud application has been very useful. Whenever we discover a new application is use, we are able to quickly determine if this application is safe to use and whether or not we should allow our end users to be able to access it."
"It also prevents you from writing data to your Gmail and does not allow you to move your data outside of the corporate system. That is the most important feature for me."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."
"Tenable also helps us to focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. And since it is continuously updated, it allows us to reevaluate quickly if there are new vulnerabilities found..."
"We really love the Security Center dashboard. It basically performs vulnerability scanning and then outputs a vulnerability data."
"We would like to see improvements to executive-level reporting and data reporting in general, which we understand is being rolled out to the platform."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"We wish there were a way, beyond providing visibility and automated remediation, to wait on a given remediation, due to a critical aspect, such as the cost associated with a particular upgrade... We would like to see preventive controls that can be applied through Wiz to protect against vulnerabilities that we're not going to be able to remediate immediately."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"De-tokenization."
"I would like to see more power being given to the admin. In the sense that in case an employee is facing an issue and they want to configure a service, like attaching an email in Gmail, for example, they should be given the option to make the service request and get that configured on the go."
"The pricing of the solution could be adjusted to make it more reasonable."
"The tool could improve flexibility with the creation of reports/querying data."
"You have to have some kind of background with cloud-based security, like working with different providers and how to make instances in the clouds and that kind of stuff - including cloud, networking cloud, cloud application development, anything like that is a requirement to be in the CASB space."
"It would be nice to be able to get more advanced search functions to filter out data and quickly obtain the data that we need."
"The secure gateway could be improved."
"The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities."
"Tenable has some problems with agents going offline during scanning and lag between agents and the security center."
"The solution is expensive."
"Support could be faster."
"At times we have had the typical bugs."
"In terms of configuration, there is some level of flexibility that we are not able to achieve."
"The solution's user interface has some issues."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
Skyhigh Security is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 51 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 10th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 48 reviews. Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Forescout Platform. See our Skyhigh Security vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.
