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

Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) vs Rapid7 InsightVM comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
18th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (11th)
Rapid7 InsightVM
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
61
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.8%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Rapid7 InsightVM is 20.7%, up from 15.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

AshishPaliwal - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Shakeel Ahmad - PeerSpot reviewer
Brilliant audit report and scorecard but scans often get blocked by firewalls
The solution cannot scan third-party tools that have firewalls within them. The firewalls detect and block the solution. Conversely, Nexus is able to bypass firewalls because it has low detectability. We use Nexus when the solution cannot bypass a firewall. The solution can scan 60% of the time but Nexus can scan 90% of the time. The solution needs to improve its vulnerability design to include CVC results. Nexus has a good, long range and a good database for finding CVC numbers. We need this level of security detail but the solution does not seem to provide it.

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."
"InsightVM has a very organized GUI with ease of use."
"The most valuable feature for us is the different types of reporting it provides."
"The risk score that they provide makes it easier to find out the biggest risks. It helped the security officers to understand where the biggest risks are so that they can act on them. They can instruct their IT teams to give them a higher priority and mitigate them."
"When you connect any new device to the network, Rapid7 has the ability to detect the new device immediately. It can scan that device to detect if it has any vulnerability. It tells you what is vulnerable and what has been misconfigured. It also tells you what is the risk of that misconfiguration or lack of patches and how to resolve the problem."
"It is good and fits well with pretty much all of our use case needs."
"The most valuable feature for me is the risk calculation based on monthly effects."
"The remediation project is a pretty effective because it allows us, as clients or countries, to choose specific assets and set limitations on them for a certain period which allows us to track and follow up on those limitations. However, when it comes to real-time monitoring and live dashboards, InsightVM doesn't quite fit the bill. It's not a real-time solution and is not instant."
"The most valuable features are its reporting capabilities and the host discovery functionality."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"This solution integrates with another module in Metasploit, that doesn't exist in the other solutions. It is subscribed to on our roadmap, but we chose to implement both Nexppose and AppSpider."
"The authentication scan is not working."
"Some of our customers want to be completely cloud based, and Rapid7 doesn't offer this as an option."
"Rapid7 InsightVM, has impressive capabilities, especially when it comes to managing video equipment. However, we've noticed that Rapid7 also offers a cloud solution called CloudSec, and we don't have that. We think it would be better if InsightVM had all the features for both on-premise and cloud management."
"Rapid7 InsightVM should improve its threat intelligence."
"The InsightVM cannot scan if we connect to our customer by the VPN."
"The platform could be more intuitive and user-friendly."
"We are a registered reseller and a trusted partner. However, for us to get any support from them I can't log a call directly with Rapid7 InsightVM. I have to work with the distributor to log the call for me."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
"In some cases, we procure the licenses. In some cases, the customers directly buy the license from Rapid7."
"The licensing is asset-based and very straightforward."
"The tool's price is neither too high nor too low. My company needs to pay 65,000 per year. There are no additional costs apart from the licensing fees attached to the solution."
"The product is cheaper than the other similar tools available in the market."
"Its licensing is yearly. Everything is included in the price for one year."
"Its price is too high. My only concern or issue with Rapid7 is its pricing."
"Pricing is reasonable because we pay according to asset usage. We can define our assets and sites according to our preference."
"It is pretty expensive. It depends on what you consider pricey, however, if you only look at vulnerability management solutions, such as within VM or VMDR, there are, I suppose the prices are almost the same. But I believe you will discover that for yourself."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Educational Organization
42%
Computer Software Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
How would you choose between Rapid7 InsightVM and Tenable Nessus?
You have full visibility across cloud, network, virtual, and containerized infrastructures with Rapid7 Insight VM. You can easily prioritize vulnerabilities using attacker analytics. Overall, Rapid...
What do you like most about Rapid7 InsightVM?
The product's initial setup phase was very easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Rapid7 InsightVM?
Rapid7 InsightVM is expensive, possibly one of the highest in pricing among similar products.
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
InsightVM, NeXpose
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
ACS, Acosta, AllianceData, amazon.com, biogen idec, CBRE, CATERPILLAR, Deloitte, COACH, GameStop, IBM
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: January 2025.
831,158 professionals have used our research since 2012.