We performed a comparison between Cisco SecureX and Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco and others in Cisco Security Portfolio."The most beneficial feature of Cisco SecureX for cybersecurity efforts is its integration with other Cisco solutions and the environment. This sets it apart, as its APIs and overall integration capabilities are very strong. Additionally, its detection capabilities are commendable."
"SecureX takes all the separate pieces of security within your company, adds in intelligence from different sites and services on the internet, and makes them work together."
"SecureX enables us to have all the threat intelligence and threat event data in one place."
"The automation and orchestration tools are the most valuable features."
"The ability to create firewalls online has been most valuable including the ability to create rules."
"One of the most valuable features is the simplicity of deploying SecureX. It's very easy to do that and then you gain very detailed visibility into everything that's going on in your network and, obviously, at the device level. There's just a wealth of information that you can pull from all of these products that are part of SecureX. You know exactly if you have an issue or not."
"Integrates well with our existing security infrastructure."
"I like that I don't have to jump around to five different products and log into five different places to view the data that it returns."
"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"The front-end work controls the new algorithm and the firewall rules. The search feature of these rules could be improved."
"Remediation stuff could be integrated into the product's automation."
"Enhancing automation capabilities could further improve the product."
"For us, the biggest sticking point is that the product is not being designed for multi-tenancy use at present, from an MSP perspective."
"They could put in more third-party [integrations]... also more playbooks, out-of-the-box, for automation [would be helpful]."
"If they could make the Cisco Umbrella piece a little bit more advanced or easier to manage, that would help. We use it for filtering and when you compare it to a normal content filter, it lacks some functionality."
"what's missing right now is the multi-tenant capability."
"I'm not sure that I would call it a bug, but sometimes the solution is a little slow."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco SecureX is ranked 9th in Cisco Security Portfolio with 13 reviews while Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 11th in Cisco Security Portfolio. Cisco SecureX is rated 9.0, while Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco SecureX writes "Gives our customers visibility and they don't have to go multiple management consoles anymore". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". Cisco SecureX is most compared with Microsoft Defender XDR, Trend Vision One, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, Splunk SOAR and Cisco Secure Network Analytics, whereas Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Brinqa.
See our list of best Cisco Security Portfolio vendors.
We monitor all Cisco Security Portfolio 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.