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

Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) 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

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
20th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (11th)
Unified Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
14th
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 March 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.6%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Unified Vulnerability Management is 2.9%, up from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Unified Vulnerability Management2.9%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)2.6%
Other94.5%
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

AshishPaliwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Self-employed at Self-employed
Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability
An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite. There are a lot of GRC suites available, like Archer, MetricStream, Rsam, Protiviti, for example. So how would a solution like this work if my company has already invested thousands or maybe millions in a GRC solution? Do I still need it and how does it fit into an existing SAP environment? There could be interoperability, having more data sources, integrating Splunk, Qualys, FireEye, Rapid7, Carbon Black. I'm sure all that can be done to an extent, with a little more insight and a little more accuracy on the industry numbers and trends. I'd like the solution to offer any sort of assistance in any way with the remediation part, not just identification of vulnerability risk, and that is second.
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 risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
"Unified Vulnerability Management gives a good overview and detailed visibility of all traffic, which allows me to easily find bottlenecks or issues."
"Based on my experience, the visibility and zero trust that Unified Vulnerability Management provides brings the biggest benefit."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
883,896 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
16%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Unified Vulnerability Management?
Regarding pricing for Unified Vulnerability Management, it is expensive; pricing is another issue. I would rate the price of Unified Vulnerability Management at nine out of ten points.
What needs improvement with Unified Vulnerability Management?
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.
What is your primary use case for Unified Vulnerability Management?
Unified Vulnerability Management provides a good overview and detailed visibility into all traffic, allowing me to easily identify bottlenecks or issues.The platform's ability to generate customiza...
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
Avalor
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: February 2026.
883,896 professionals have used our research since 2012.