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

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

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
22nd
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
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
46
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (11th), Patch Management (14th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 1.9%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Vulnerability Management is 6.1%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tenable Vulnerability Management6.1%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)1.9%
Other92.0%
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.
TarunKumar2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Deputy Global Chief Information Security Officer at Nissan Digital
Quarterly automated scans have strengthened our global security posture and guided faster remediation
I think their automated vulnerability scan and the scanning engine of Tenable Vulnerability Management are valuable. There are agents that you can deploy, and you can run the scans on those IPs on an automated basis. The automated scanning feature is probably the most important. They also have a good remediation workflow which can be integrated with your own internal workflow. You can do automated tracking of closure of the vulnerabilities. The ease of use, the automated scanning facility, and their good support mechanism are all valuable. If you were to get stuck somewhere, they can readily make their customer service or technical teams available to take care of our needs. Automated vulnerability scanning is the feature which makes life a little easier.

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."
"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 ease of use, the automated scanning facility, and their good support mechanism are all valuable."
"The solution's most valuable aspects are its user interface and usability."
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
"A new user can easily understand the workflow, even if they are creating users for other divisions and the user is a beginner."
"The solution's most valuable feature is providing a single pane of visibility on all the infrastructure and its status."
"It helps us create remediation projects and assign the console’s responsibility to specific engineers."
"It is easy to manage. Most of the information the tool provided helped to further investigate the vulnerability and its impact."
"The stability is excellent."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"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."
"AI integration for reporting in Tenable would be beneficial."
"They've been able to think about everything in terms of where the world is going and the type of assets that you've got. They've everything sorted out in that aspect, but you have to pay for most of the other components that they've got to give you complete visibility across your tech surface. If it already had those capabilities in-built, without having to add them on to take advantage of them, it would be a very compelling value proposition."
"The pricing of the solution could be more reasonable."
"Technical support requires constant follow up and that is an issue. I rate support a two out of ten."
"One area that they could improve is technical support. Oftentimes, it's not as good as it should be."
"An area of improvement for this solution is being able to customize the dashboard."
"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."
"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 cost is determined by the number of endpoints, which is approximately one dollar per endpoint."
"The product costs us around $137,000 annually for 4000 to 5000 assets."
"There are additional features that can be licensed for an additional cost."
"I would rate the pricing a five out of ten. It is in the middle."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
914,262 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

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, Wiz, Horizon3.ai and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: September 2026.
914,262 professionals have used our research since 2012.