Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Brinqa vs Unified Vulnerability Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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

Brinqa
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
18th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (56th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (48th), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (49th)
Unified Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
21st
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Brinqa is 2.0%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Unified Vulnerability Management is 3.1%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Brinqa2.0%
Unified Vulnerability Management3.1%
Other94.9%
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

RB
Cybersecurity Director at RB Consultancy
Allows us to configure the risk algorithm to suit our specific needs
I would give the easiness of the initial setup a seven out of ten. It can be a bit complex. Some connections are straightforward, but some take a long time. Deploying Brinqa took time, as it was done in phases. Initially, it took about six months before we started getting valuable data from it. Then, it expanded from there. The deployment began with a product demo and contract negotiation. We connected some data sources to Brinqa's cloud service, which was straightforward. We used the default risk ranking algorithm but faced issues with the dashboards, so we customized them to fit our organization's needs over a few years. We depended a lot on Brinqa for the deployment. We had some internal resources, but they lacked the needed skills, so it took time to train our two-man team. Initially, it required one person for maintenance, and they spent most of their time on it.
ADEOYE-AFOLABI - PeerSpot reviewer
Head Of Network And Security at Nigeria LNG Limited
Unified visibility has strengthened zero trust decisions but reporting and skills still need work
Regarding the ability of Unified Vulnerability Management to generate customizable compliance reports, it is adequate, but sometimes you still need to be able to filter whatever the report generates to ensure accuracy and have a baseline on what the report provides. You should be able to filter and also take action on critical and non-critical reports. You get a lot of reports, but filtering them is essential. The negative side of Unified Vulnerability Management is that you need a skill set that is not readily available. You require a lot of training and personnel that understand the technology, so getting the skill set is a major issue for managing the technology.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
"Based on my experience, the visibility and zero trust that Unified Vulnerability Management provides brings the biggest benefit."
"Unified Vulnerability Management gives a good overview and detailed visibility of all traffic, which allows me to easily find bottlenecks or issues."
 

Cons

"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
"The negative side of Unified Vulnerability Management is that you need a skill set that is not readily available."
"More AI features would be welcome, and the price should be lower because it is becoming more expensive, and customers are already looking for alternatives because of the pricing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
16%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Avalor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: February 2026.
882,333 professionals have used our research since 2012.