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

Lacework FortiCNAPP vs Tenable Nessus comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 12, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.9
Lacework FortiCNAPP enhances ROI by automating monitoring, integrating with Jira, reducing personnel needs, and improving security management.
Sentiment score
7.1
Tenable Nessus enhances security and threat management, improving visibility and preventing costly attacks, though ROI quantification is challenging.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
7.8
Lacework FortiCNAPP's customer service is valued for proactive communication, Slack integration, and reliable technical support despite occasional delays.
Sentiment score
7.9
Tenable Nessus customer service is responsive and effective, though complex issues occasionally face delays; overall satisfaction is high.
Whenever any issue arises, we contact the support, and they are always there for us.
The technical support is good yet could improve in terms of response time.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
Lacework FortiCNAPP is praised for scalability, adaptable across various environments, with minor licensing challenges noted by users.
Sentiment score
7.1
Tenable Nessus is scalable and adaptable, although large enterprises may face challenges with extensive data and cloud limitations.
Whether managing 50 servers today or 500 tomorrow, performance or capacity are not hindered.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Lacework FortiCNAPP demonstrates stable performance with minimal issues and rare non-disruptive delays, fostering user confidence in its capabilities.
Sentiment score
8.1
Users praise Tenable Nessus's stability and reliability, with minimal issues that are easily resolved, making it highly dependable.
We have not encountered any issues with missing network items or errors in API and webhook interactions.
 

Room For Improvement

Lacework FortiCNAPP enhancements focus on visibility, IAM controls, usability, integration, and granularity in alert management and reporting.
Tenable Nessus users seek improved reporting, UI, integration, vulnerability accuracy, and expanded coverage with better management, customization, and pricing.
The documentation is not well-organized, which can be confusing when searching for solutions or specific information related to Tenable Nessus Professional.
 

Setup Cost

Lacework FortiCNAPP offers stable, competitive pricing, starting at $80,000 annually, with a unique, refined licensing structure.
Tenable Nessus offers competitive pricing, appealing to smaller organizations, with pricing from $2,000 to $6,000 and no hidden fees.
Tenable Nessus's pricing is adequate if it is fully utilized.
 

Valuable Features

Lacework FortiCNAPP excels with ease of use, machine learning anomaly detection, compliance reports, and seamless multi-cloud security integration.
Tenable Nessus excels in comprehensive vulnerability management with automation, ease of integration, and cost-effective, customizable solutions.
The scanning and reporting features are the most valuable aspects of Tenable Nessus.
The features I personally like include host discovery.
 

Categories and Ranking

Lacework FortiCNAPP
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
16th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (15th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (13th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (15th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (11th), Compliance Management (7th)
Tenable Nessus
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Lacework FortiCNAPP is 1.5%, down from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Nessus is 12.5%, down from 15.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Carlos Vitrano - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides quick visibility and significantly reduces alerts
Its integrations with third-party SIEMs can be better. That is one of the things that we discussed with them. We have integrations, for instance, with Splunk. The data that we are receiving in Splunk is huge, and it is valid because Lacework has a bunch of data that they can provide to you. However, to be able to import the data and create alerts, we needed to do some work, so integration is one of the things that they can improve. For container security, how they scan images and how they provide results is something that they need to continue improving in terms of visibility. We already have visibility to several artifacts, but they can take that to the next level and see what else they can do. There can be better integrations with CI/CD pipelines. There can be improvements in terms of how we can take action or how we can report from the number of inventories they are providing to us.
HarshBhardiya - PeerSpot reviewer
Provided increased visibility across the organization's servers
The user interface of Tenable Nessus feels outdated and could be more user-friendly. Additionally, the documentation is not well-organized, which can be confusing when searching for solutions or specific information related to Tenable Nessus Professional. The reporting feature could be improved by allowing users to create their own templates instead of relying on predefined ones.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Retailer
5%
Educational Organization
41%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
6%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Lacework?
Polygraph compliance is a valuable feature. In our perspective, it delivers significant benefits. The clarity it offers, along with the ability to identify and address misconfigurations, is invalua...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Lacework?
My smaller deployments cost around 200,000 a year, which is probably not as expensive as Wiz.
What needs improvement with Lacework?
The solution lacks a cohesive data model, making extracting the necessary data from the platform challenging. It uses its own LQL query language, and each database across different layers and modul...
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'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 do you like most about Tenable Nessus?
We have around 500 virtual machines. Therefore, we conduct monthly scans and open tickets for our developers to address identified vulnerabilities. These scans cover the servers, other network equi...
 

Also Known As

Polygraph, FortiCNP
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

J.Crew, AdRoll, Snowflake, VMWare, Iterable, Pure Storage, TrueCar, NerdWallet, and more.
Bitbrains, Tesla, Just Eat, Crosskey Banking Solutions, Covenant Health, Youngstown State University
Find out what your peers are saying about Lacework FortiCNAPP vs. Tenable Nessus and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,020 professionals have used our research since 2012.