No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs Tenable Vulnerability Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Arctic Wolf Managed Risk
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
34th
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
12th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tenable Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
8th
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Patch Management (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is 1.0%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Vulnerability Management is 2.8%, down from 6.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tenable Vulnerability Management2.8%
Arctic Wolf Managed Risk1.0%
Other96.2%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

CK
Director, Information Technology at a performing arts with 201-500 employees
Proactive alert management enhances network security and provides peace of mind
The reporting is really good from what I've seen so far. They are on top of the alerts, especially the critical ones. This proactive approach to alert management ensures that if someone downloads something on a workstation that shouldn't be downloaded, they address it quickly. Their ability to identify and provide information on critical alerts is very valuable.
Chethan Gowda - PeerSpot reviewer
Windows Security Patching Operation III (Cyber Operations) at CBTS
Have maintained accurate vulnerability scans and gained actionable remediation insights across thousands of servers
Tenable Vulnerability Management agents are very lightweight, and the results we get are very accurate. The solutions they provide to us, assuming if one vulnerability exists, there will be a solution. The resolution they give us in wording will be the best solution. The exploit rates and the reports we get provide a lot of information, making it very easy for us to verify.The main benefit of integration with Tenable Vulnerability Management is that there will be no lack of missing vulnerabilities when it comes to the patching environment. That is one of the key aspects of why we have integrated Tenable to our patching tools. It has a vast capacity of pushing the data to our tools due to its capability and compatibility. That is also one of the reasons why we are using Tenable Vulnerability Management.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"The most valuable feature of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is being informed about what vulnerabilities there are exposed currently."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"We have a patch management solution that scans for any patches that can be applied and then applies these patches, but it doesn't hit everything. It also doesn't find all misconfigurations and things like that. Arctic Wolf Managed Risk kind of fills in the gaps and makes us aware of vulnerabilities or misconfigurations that exist out there. It does an agent scan for software versions and compares them to what CVs are out there and lets us know."
"The reporting is really good from what I've seen so far."
"The user-friendly interface and customizable reporting have helped our IT team interpret and act on the platform's insights."
"The user-friendly interface and customizable reporting helped our IT team interpret and act on the platform's insights because they did not have any problems using it."
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk kind of fills in the gaps and makes us aware of vulnerabilities or misconfigurations that exist out there."
"It has greatly impacted us by providing asset visibility."
"The vulnerability scanning is the most important aspect of the solution for us."
"The solution creates vulnerability tickets within the VM profile but should also include them under the Remediation tab so the fixes can be viewed in the ticketing queue."
"There is no burden of updating or upgrading this solution."
"The dashboard is pretty intuitive, and it lets you do a drill-down analysis of each vulnerability. That is something that brings a lot of value to the organization."
"It helps us create remediation projects and assign the console’s responsibility to specific engineers."
"The solution's most valuable aspects are its user interface and usability."
"The interface is fine."
 

Cons

"The scalability could improve."
"It could be easier to use. They could present things in a little bit more ranked order rather than kind of giving you everything out there. It should highlight the really important stuff and make it easier to get to good rather than perfect."
"As far as the product is concerned, I would really like the scanning feature to let us know that a threat has been addressed once we apply the relevant patch. We are not seeing this currently when running a scan."
"The presentation of the data could be improved. I believe they have significant room for improvement, particularly in making better analysis of the vulnerability data and presenting those data more effectively."
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk needs to add more integrations."
"The major area for improvement is the lack of a patch management feature to resolve some of the vulnerabilities detected."
"The best way to take this product to the next level would be to implement a patch management solution."
"The major area for improvement is the lack of a patch management feature to resolve some of the vulnerabilities detected."
"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."
"More flexibility is required compared to other solutions."
"I would rate it four out of ten. For startups, freelancers, or companies between startup and midsize, Tenable is recommended. However, for midsize or enterprise-level companies, I would not prefer it."
"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."
"AI integration for reporting in Tenable would be beneficial."
"Tenable.io Vulnerability Management could be improved with an increased number of dashboards and MSSP integration."
"Users get confused between VPR and CVSS ratings."
"The interface could be improved; right now it's running on two interfaces simultaneously."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It depends on the company size quite a bit."
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is reasonably priced and I rate it a four out of ten."
"The price of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is reasonable compared to the competition."
"There are additional features that can be licensed for an additional cost."
"The total cost we pay for this solution is over 45K. This is for a large education organization."
"The cost is determined by the number of endpoints, which is approximately one dollar per endpoint."
"The product costs us around $137,000 annually for 4000 to 5000 assets."
"I would rate the pricing a five out of ten. It is in the middle."
"On a scale of one to ten, where one is low, and ten is high price, I rate the pricing an eight. So, it is a pretty expensive solution."
"Compared to other VM solutions, Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is expensive."
"Tenable charges around $40 per device."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
886,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise21
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
There are some challenges with integrations in Arctic Wolf Managed Risk. Some integrations could be improved to enhance functionality.
What advice do you have for others considering Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
We will proceed with publishing the review on the platform, making it available to other users. The link will be provided, and you can add to it, edit it, or adjust your notification preferences as...
What's the difference between Tenable Nessus and Tenable.io Vulnerability Management?
Tenable Nessus is a vulnerability assessment solution that is both easy to deploy and easy to manage. The design of the program is such that if a company should desire to handle the installation t...
What needs improvement with Tenable.io Vulnerability Management?
I don't think that there is any very specific area where enhancements need to happen in Tenable Vulnerability Management's feature sets. The only area which possibly is not a part of the feature, b...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tenable.io
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Zelle LLP, DNI Corp, Roper Pump, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice
Global Payments AU/NZ
Find out what your peers are saying about Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs. Tenable Vulnerability Management and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
886,906 professionals have used our research since 2012.