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

Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) vs Tenable Vulnerability Management 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:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.9
Tenable's support is responsive but costly, with mixed reviews on response times, effectiveness, and documentation access issues noted.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
4.3
Tenable Vulnerability Management needs interface improvements, better reporting, clearer licensing, and enhanced user-friendly features for small businesses.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
7.3
Tenable Vulnerability Management is highly scalable and widely used, especially in finance and public sectors, with flexible cloud-based solutions.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.5
Tenable Vulnerability Management is considered expensive with asset-based pricing, prompting users to seek cost-effective, flexible payment options.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.1
Tenable Vulnerability Management is reliable and stable, highly rated by users despite occasional minor network-related issues.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
8.1
Tenable excels in vulnerability management with a user-friendly interface, robust scanning, seamless integration, and comprehensive risk prioritization.
 

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)
Tenable Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
40
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 3.1%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Vulnerability Management is 28.9%, down from 37.5% 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.
Yogeswaran Neelagandan - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers risk prioritization , notification system but support should be bundled with the product cost
It's a fantastic product, but there are some things to consider. One is the price. Compared to on-prem solutions, the SaaS model can be expensive. Price is definitely a concern and needs improvement, especially for the Indian market. While it's a fantastic product, it should be more accessible to small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs). Currently, only larger enterprises seem to be able to afford and evaluate it thoroughly. So, pricing can be improved and be more affordable for the Indian market, specifically for SMBs. Another area of improvement is customer service and support. Tenable needs to include support in the pricing/license. Currently, they push clients to get support from partners or channel distributors, who often charge a lot. Even for a simple one-time setup, they may charge three to four lakhs, and then additional annual charges for ongoing support. We have the technical skills to handle basic tasks, but relying on Tenable itself often results in just receiving emails or being redirected back to channel partners. So, support should be bundled with the product cost.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
25%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Educational Organization
30%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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?
It needs additional reporting and intelligence features, as well as enhancements in AI-driven detection, which is still in its early stages.
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
Tenable.io
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Global Payments AU/NZ
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.