Rapid7 InsightVM Reviews

We use a hybrid setup. Some dashboards and configurations are uploaded to the Cloud, and some of them are on-premises. The main engine is on-premises. We have about 12 customers and some of them are big companies. 

There are a few main features that we are very happy with. Using Rapid7, we can install a scan engine, we can do our VPN connections, and we can conduct internal scans of remote sites. We prefer the web application. It's smarter and more accurate from an application perspective.

The integration with other solutions like JIRA could be better. Perhaps there could be some additional updates in the next phase that could integrate with it, so then you can proceed with the VT much easier.

I've been using Rapid7 for about two years.

From a scalability standpoint, it's good because they give you around 100%. If you want to increase your asset counts, for example, they give you permission for 100% above the limit that you pay for.

Their support is very good. Technical support varies from person to person. Some cases have taken some time, but once it was escalated, everything was done well and the problem was solved. We've had some cases involving integration, remote sites, and some special configurations. They provided us with some support on all that.  

It's straightforward. Everything is like setting up Lego cubes. It doesn't take much time to deploy. The first deployment may take around an hour or two.

The license could be a little bit cheaper. For all these features, you would expect to pay a little bit lower but around the same general price. Licenses are paid yearly. For some customers, we pay two years at a time, but mostly it's yearly.

I would rate it nine out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

I use InsightVM for vulnerability scanning, to follow up that patching is done properly, and to control operational teams and ensure they're doing their job.

InsightVM lets me scan our environments and ensure that our operational teams are on top of patching.

InsightVM's best features are the vulnerability database and remediation steps.

InsightVM is getting a little stale and is in danger of falling behind its competitors. It's also becoming more complicated, and I prefer it to be kept simple. Its cloud coverage could also be stepped up.

I've been using InsightVM for ten years.

Insight VM is very stable.

There used to be some problems with scaling InsightVM, but those limitations have been removed in newer versions.

Rapid7's technical support is brilliant, responsive, and professional.

Positive

The initial setup was very easy and took a day to complete. I would rate the setup process five out of five.

We used an in-house team.

Having a vulnerability scanner has saved us from cyber attacks a number of times, so we've gotten good ROI from Insight VM. I'd rate our ROI as five out of five.

InsightVM is an expensive product, especially compared to its competitors, at around a million NOK per year. Support is included in the license for no extra cost. I would rate their pricing at one out of five.

InsightVM has integration with Kubernetes, which no other solution has. I would give Insight VM a rating of eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

The solution is primarily used for vulnerability management, specifically vulnerability scanning of the endpoint devices.

The main functionality of identifying item endpoints that weren't properly patched or had vulnerabilities is the solution's most valuable feature.

We found that after you passed an endpoint, it didn't always reflect it in the next scan. I'm not sure if it was a glitch or some issue with the product's software. That was never clear. That was always an issue and something that definitely needed improvement.

We've used the solution for four years.

I didn't notice anything in terms of stability issues. There was always data in it, so I didn't, face any problems. We just had an issue once where we would scan and then we would patch and occasionally it wasn't reflected on the next scan that that patch was there. That was the biggest issue we faced. Other than that, it was reliable. We didn't really have glitchiness or bugs. It wasn't crashing or freezing on us.

I probably don't have an opinion on the scalability. It seemed to function, however, beyond that I'm not sure. As an end-user, I just would log in and run reports. I wasn't in charge of expanding the solution. I used it in a pretty non-technical way.

There were only ever about 10 to 15 users on the solution at any given time.

I never actually got in touch with technical support. I wouldn't be able to speak t their level of service.

The company did not use a different solution before using this product.

I never set up the software myself. I was always just an end-user. I can't speak to if the solution was straightforward or complex.

I have not idea how long deployment took. I'm not sure if it was a long process or not.

Maintenance was handled by our security division. I don't know if there was one person or there were multiple admins that handled that aspect of the solution.

It's my understanding that the solution was set up in-house and an integrator or reseller was not used.

I'm not sure what the solution would cost on a monthly or yearly basis.

I'm not sure if the company evaluated other options or not. I wasn't part of that process.

The company I'm working with now is looking at evaluating Tenable.io.

The company I worked for was just a customer and I was just an end-user. There was no business relationship between the two companies that I was aware of.

The company is considering moving from on-premises to the cloud.

I am unsure of which version of the solution is being used currently. I'm no longer at the company where I used the product.

While the solution worked well, I have never compared other solutions, so I don't know if it's best in class or not.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

On-premises

We are using the solution for configuration review and vulnerability management.

I am using the latest version.

We have fewer false positives.

We feel the interface is very good. It is very easy to use, even a nontechnical person can use it.

The reporting has room for improvement. You cannot customize any report. If I need a specific requirement, I have to create a new report for it. I cannot pull up two or three things in one report.

Three years.

It is stable. For the last three years, we haven't faced any bugs.

It's very easily scalable. You just have to renew your license, and the scalability is already done.

Currently, we have three people who are use the solution. We manage this solution for the whole organization.

The technical support is very helpful, but too slow. Overall, it usually takes 24 hours for them to reply, but the support that they provide is good.

It's very straightforward. The deployment took less than an hour.

We implemented it on our own.

The license is IP based. How many IPs you are using to scan is the amount of the license you have to buy. The number of users doesn't matter; many users can use it or only person. It depends on the culture of the organization.

We have 600 to 700 licenses.

We tested two to three solutions where we had a couple of false positives. 

Rapid7 InsightVM has very low false positives, so you don't have to go in manually and verify them. This solution is efficient.

I would recommend the product. The product is very good.

I would rate the product between a nine and a nine point five (out of 10).

On-premises

We primarily use the solution for vulnerability management.

From a scanning perspective, it’s great. The customization associated with each and every scan is very good. It actually provides functionality from a CIS control perspective as well.

It is easy to deploy.

The product is scalable.

The solution is very stable.

The reporting could be better.

We do not need any additional features.

I’ve been using the solution for two years.

The solution is very stable. The reliability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze.

The solution is absolutely scalable.

From a footprint perspective, there are about 780 servers. In totality, there's a license entitlement for about 1000 clients.

Technical support has been accurate.

Neutral

The solution is straightforward to set up and simple to deploy. It’s not overly complex. We only need one technical person to handle the setup process.

How long it takes to deploy depends on multiple instances whereby multiple factors, depending on client, on-prem, et cetera. Your average deployment time would be anything from three to five days.

As partners, we can handle the implementation.

The ROI is fair to mild.

The licensing is market-related.

The cost depends on the number of assets per annum.

It is very flexible. What's nice about it is, from a client's perspective, the environment can either grow and you can chew up, or it can shrink, and it meets whatever needs you have.

The licensing includes technical support.

We’re partners.

We’re always using the latest version of the solution.

There's a mix of deployments. There's an on-prem deployment in certain customer areas. However, there's also a cloud deployment from the MSSV point of view as well.

The scanner is always on-prem. The majority of the scanners that we've deployed are on-prem. Although some of the consoles are selling cloud-deployed, other consoles would be on-prem.

I’d rate the solution seven out of ten.

Public Cloud

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

The primary use case of this solution is for vulnerability management.

We have monthly scans and reporting. The results are in QRadar, which is our SIEM.

This solution is very easy to use and easy to install.

It has nice features.

It would be nice to have an additional feature that would provide reports on who has logged onto the console or who did what on the console. I don't have the time to log onto the console and use SSH to go through the logs. 

We have some users with certain privileges, and sometimes they do things that I don't like.  This is why it would be nice to have an easy way to report what is in the logs.

In the next release, I would like to see reporting added to the console. It would be helpful to have reports to tell you who did what, who created reports, who created groups or who created tags.

I have been working with this solution for five years.

The stability is good. I am running it on Linux and from that point of view, Linux is stable.

We are using this solution daily. 

This solution is easy to scale. 

I am working at Triglav Group which is the leading insurance-financial group in Slovenia and
in the Adria region and one of the leading groups in South-East Europe

Triglav Group operates together with its subsidiaries and associated companies on seven markets and in six countries.

We use with two consoles, one is international for subdiraies and other is for the Slovenia all thogether we have 15 scan engines on locations.

Approximately a year ago, we had an issue with the dashboard. We contacted technical support to ask a question. Unfortunately, we were not able to resolve the issue that we were having. It could have been something in our network, but we don't know. It was not a big issue.

The technical support is good, they do give you answers and they are pretty quick.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

I deployed this solution. It took a couple of days with ten engines.

We did not use a vendor or integrator to implement this solution. We have five thousand people in this firm and I am the only one in technical team. 

My advice would be to just use it. 

As a whole, it's a pretty good product. I don't have any problem with it.

If they had the audit reporting then I would rate it a ten out of ten, but as it is now, I would rate this solution a nine out of then.

On-premises

We use this solution for our internal server for scanning. We can scan for vulnerabilities and locate them.

We also generate reports for the patching team. We assign tasks to the patching team.

It's a relevant management tool. 

It has some useful automation features. The report generating and the scanning are very helpful.

It would be very helpful to have integration. There are many plugins that can be used for tasks that would help the visibility and be able to locate the exact problem.

I would like to see more integration. 

I would also like to see more flexibility when scheduling the scans. We should be able to schedule scans when we want them to be scheduled. Currently, they have to be scheduled before a certain day of the week.

I have been using Rapid7 InsightVm for six months during my internship.

Rapid7 InsightVM is a stable product.

We have no issues with the scalability of this solution. We have a vulnerability management team of four who are using it, and in our organization, we have approximately 20 people, including management.

Technical support is good.

I have used Tenable Nessus previously for my personal projects. I used it for scanning for my projects in college.

I was not involved in the installation. It was already installed previously.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others, but more integration features would be more helpful.

I would rate Rapid7 InsightVM an eight out of ten.

On-premises

Our primary use case is looking for people who are using Tor, or VPNs generally, and the only way we can see that is if they log in and then they log in in a foreign country right away, which means they're jumping on to the "escalator".

We really didn't have any visibility at all and now we do. It's like night and day.

NeXpose is a pretty good vulnerability scanner, good enough. There's a nice dashboard and it's a pretty cool SIEM.

We could always have a cheaper price, but other than that it's pretty good stuff.

Also, if they’d expand their product line, that would be good, and they are doing so, but they're not done yet.

Stability is rock solid.

We're at a pretty big scale already. I don't expect us to get any bigger and it's handling our scale now. If anything, we’ll probably shrink.

We're a school district and, in this area, there are three big districts, and they have open enrollment. We're not on the marketing end of our school district. If the marketing doesn't do well, we’ll shrink.

Tech support is satisfactory.

Last year got a new person in the position of information security officer, and he brought the news with him.

We went with NeXpose because we wanted to get as many products as we could from the same vendor. A full suite would have been fantastic, but that doesn't exist yet. Rapid7 had the vulnerability scanner, the penetration testing, and the SIEM, and the web app evaluator. They're adding other things. They acquired another company recently that will benefit us if we get that product. It's the all-in-one works we like.

My most important criterion when selecting a vendor is that they have to have a purchasing vehicle that is approved for school districts. It's harder than it sounds. We can't just say, "We want that, send us a bill."

It's easy to install.

We started with SentinelOne, we looked at CrowdStrike, we looked at Red Canary. The funny thing was, Red Canary was just remarketing CrowdStrike, or something like that. It got to a point where I realized these weren’t additional vendors. They were just additional packagers of the same solution.

Take a test drive. If you don't test drive it, how do you know you're going to like it or if it even works. Would you buy a car without test driving it? Absolutely not. In this case, it’s a sales contract. It's a service for one to three years. Backing out of it is pretty much impossible.

I rate it at eight out of 10. It just works. We haven't had any trouble with it. We've had good support. What's not to like? But it's an eight because the software that can be purchased is not the ultimate software. It's hard to give anybody a 10.