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

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:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
23rd
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
3rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (9th), Patch Management (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.1%, down from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Vulnerability Management is 6.8%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tenable Vulnerability Management6.8%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)2.1%
Other91.1%
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.
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

"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature; that is what it is used for and then data from different sources can be fed into it, and they have good dashboards, risk meters, and virtualization."
"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
"The ease of use in terms of scanning assets is valuable, and it has a diverse checklist when it comes to vulnerability databases."
"It helps us create remediation projects and assign the console’s responsibility to specific engineers."
"The stability is commendable, and I would rate Tenable ten out of ten."
"By making different resources available for sharing among users and groups, Tenable.io provides endless possibilities for creating customized workflows for vulnerability management programs, regardless of any of the numerous regulatory or compliance drivers that demand keeping your business secure."
"Tenable is user-friendly and excels in reporting."
"It's a recommended tool for penetration testers because it's effective for that purpose."
"One of the most valuable features of Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is its exportability, which allows us to conduct risk assessments efficiently."
"The stability has been very good overall."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"Tenable is a full-service product, but it still has a lot of improvements to make, so I'd recommend exploring other products before implementing it."
"The initial setup is complex and has room for improvement."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"There needs to be better dashboard navigation."
"I would like the solution to cover the whole cycle of mitigation since it's an area where the solution currently lacks."
"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."
"The biggest problem with the solution is that if you're a small company, you're not going to be able to afford it, nor are you going to be able to manage it."
"t needs additional reporting and intelligence features, as well as enhancements in AI-driven detection, which is still in its early stages."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
"The product costs us around $137,000 annually for 4000 to 5000 assets."
"Tenable.io is not known for being a cheap product."
"Tenable charges around $40 per device."
"A yearly payment has to be made toward the solution's licensing costs."
"Compared to other VM solutions, Tenable.io Vulnerability Management is expensive."
"The total cost we pay for this solution is over 45K. This is for a large education organization."
"The tool is reasonably priced."
"The cost is determined by the number of endpoints, which is approximately one dollar per endpoint."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business20
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise22
 

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?
In my opinion, I would like to see additional functions and improvements. Something related to AI would be a good addition.
What advice do you have for others considering Tenable.io Vulnerability Management?
I have purchased a license directly from Tenable, so I am working directly with Tenable and not through partners. My overall review rating for Tenable Vulnerability Management is eight.
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Global Payments AU/NZ
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Horizon3.ai, Tenable and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: August 2026.
907,816 professionals have used our research since 2012.