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

SUSE NeuVector vs Tenable Security Center 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

SUSE NeuVector
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (16th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (20th)
Tenable Security Center
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (12th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. SUSE NeuVector is designed for Container Security and holds a mindshare of 1.9%, down 2.6% compared to last year.
Tenable Security Center, on the other hand, focuses on Risk-Based Vulnerability Management, holds 9.0% mindshare, down 17.4% since last year.
Container Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SUSE NeuVector1.9%
Wiz12.4%
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks9.0%
Other76.7%
Container Security
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Tenable Security Center9.0%
Qualys VMDR12.5%
Rapid7 InsightVM10.8%
Other67.7%
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Managing Director at ProQuanta
Good value for money; great for policy management
Our model of deployment for this solution is on-premises. For people looking into this solution and trying to use it for the first time, I'd say make your life easier by using the SUSE product as well on top of your community scale stack. That makes your integration points a lot easier and smoother. I would also say during your initial setup, make sure that your clusters are already in terms of the capabilities with the version required. I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that what they offer is solid, but they could expand their service and add more features just to make more things integrated into an enterprise itself.
OndrejKOVAC - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution engineer at EXPERTience
Empower clients with risk-based vulnerability management through continuous workflow and valuable insights
Tenable Security Center could improve by implementing more dynamic data displays and translating reports into European languages. This is especially relevant in Central Eastern Europe, where clients often require reports in local languages. Additionally, the licensing model could be more flexible for managed security providers, similar to a pay-as-you-go model.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The UI has a lot of features."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The predictive prioritization features are pretty good. They do a lot of research and we trust the research that they do internally. They have knowledge of what's going on with many companies, where we only get a view into what's going on here. So the ability to get best practices out of them as part of this solution, is valuable to us."
"I find Tenable SC to be a very scalable product."
"The most valuable feature of the product is the Assurance Report Card, which gives us an overview of the security poster in just a simple glance."
"The most valuable feature is the automatic and periodic management of security scans, along with the ability to consolidate all information into a single dashboard."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"Tenable SC is good for reporting and alerting. The filtering feature is also very valuable. Its integration with multiple vendors is quite good. It can be integrated with SIEM solutions and PAM solutions such as Thycotic, which is very helpful."
"The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis."
"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."
 

Cons

"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"However, I found that the support in Egypt was not very qualified, and there was a need to upgrade to a higher support layer to solve my issues."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"Using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features between two clusters and could be improved."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"We did conduct a long implementation which relates to what I think can be improved about Tenable Security Center."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"Deploying Tenable.sc is highly complex because it's an on-prem solution, whereas Tenable.io is cloud-based, so you can go live as soon as you log in. Tenable.sc involves significant integration with other on-prem solutions, and the deployment takes about two to three weeks with the help of a system integrator"
"Tenable's reporting engine needs improvement. It needs to be more efficient and add more features."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"The user interface can be improved."
"Tenable SC could be improved with additional connectivity to external company postures and the capability of managing and sustaining agents in the systems directly without additional platforms in the middle."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"The pricing is more than Nexpose."
"Tenable.sc is more expensive than its competitors."
"I use a local license to perform penetration testing and I'm pretty happy with everything when it comes to pricing and licensing."
"For 500 users the licensing fee is roughly $100,000."
"My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs. The pricing of the solution falls in the mid-range level, so it is not too expensive"
"I rate the solution's price as seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The tool is quite expensive."
"The pricing depends upon the number of IPs."
"Tenable SC is priced per asset, with the basic solution starting around US$12,000 for 500 assets."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
882,606 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features be...
What is your primary use case for NeuVector?
In my company, I am looking to deploy a container security runtime solution.
What do you like most about Tenable SC?
The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tenable SC?
The price of Tenable Security Center is not so high; it's relatively a cheaper solution.
What needs improvement with Tenable SC?
We did conduct a long implementation which relates to what I think can be improved about Tenable Security Center. In some cases, we needed to refer back to Tenable itself, and in other cases, we ne...
 

Also Known As

NeuVector
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about Wiz, Palo Alto Networks, SentinelOne and others in Container Security. Updated: February 2026.
882,606 professionals have used our research since 2012.