Tenable Security Center vs Tenable Vulnerability Management comparison

Tenable Security Center and Tenable Vulnerability Management compete in the field of vulnerability assessment and management. Tenable Vulnerability Management appears to have an advantage due to its broader environment compatibility and emphasis on continuous monitoring and real-world prioritizations.

Features: Tenable Security Center focuses on extensive vulnerability scanning with customizable policies, making it suitable for complex environments like clinical networks. It also features strong dashboard and reporting capabilities for prioritizing risks. Tenable Vulnerability Management supports wider environment compatibility, including cloud setups, and emphasizes asset discovery. Its intuitive interface facilitates organization-wide visibility into vulnerabilities.

Room for Improvement: Tenable Security Center is critiqued for limited reporting flexibility and integration capabilities, particularly in modifying compliance audit functions. Users face challenges with report customization. Tenable Vulnerability Management is noted for pricing concerns and complexity in setup. Users express the need for improved dashboard customization and better prioritization alignments, alongside more straightforward reporting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Tenable Security Center is primarily on-premises, praised for its functionality in controlled environments. Customer service is generally responsive, with premium support enhancing assistance. Tenable Vulnerability Management supports both cloud and on-premises architectures, suitable for modern hybrid IT infrastructures. While its technical support is responsive, delays are reported in European regions, suggesting an opportunity to improve response times and geographic coverage.

Pricing and ROI: Tenable Security Center is considered expensive, with pricing based on asset numbers, challenging for smaller enterprises. Tenable Vulnerability Management also commands a premium price, especially for large implementations, yet users value its cost avoidance and resource savings, finding ROI in security breach prevention. Both solutions justify their costs through features and improvements, though affordability remains a concern for smaller organizations.