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

AttackIQ vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) 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

AttackIQ
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (42nd), Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) (4th), Attack Surface Management (ASM) (18th), Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (6th)
Cisco Vulnerability Managem...
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (11th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Security Software solutions, they serve different purposes. AttackIQ is designed for Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) and holds a mindshare of 9.8%, up 8.4% compared to last year.
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM), on the other hand, focuses on Risk-Based Vulnerability Management, holds 2.3% mindshare, down 2.4% since last year.
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
AttackIQ9.8%
Pentera20.0%
Cymulate14.9%
Other55.3%
Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS)
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)2.3%
Qualys VMDR9.8%
Rapid7 InsightVM8.1%
Other79.8%
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Akash Das Barman - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Trainee at DataSpace Academy
Continuous validation has improved MITRE-based detection coverage across hybrid environments
Overall, AttackIQ is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could improve. One area is the learning curve for new users. Since the platform is deeply tied to MITRE ATT&CK mapping and security validation workflows, beginners may need more guided onboarding and simplified explanations for certain modules. Another improvement could be more customizable dashboards and reporting views for different stakeholders, especially for executive-level summaries versus technical SOC analysis. I also think integrations and automation workflows could be expanded further for multi-vendor environments, making it easier to correlate results across different security tools. From an operational perspective, more built-in recommendations for remediation or detection tuning after simulation would also be valuable, especially for teams that are still maturing their security operations.One additional area for improvement in AttackIQ could be deeper real-time guidance during simulations, especially for less experienced analysts. For example, after identifying a detection gap, the platform could provide more prescriptive recommendations on how to improve SIEM correlation rules or EDR configuration. That would help teams move faster from validation to remediation. I also think improving visualization of attack paths and attack chain relationships would make investigations easier during purple team exercises. Another potential improvement is making some workflows lighter and easier for smaller organizations that may not have a large dedicated SOC team, because BAS platforms can sometimes feel enterprise-focused.
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"AttackIQ has had a positive impact on the organization, especially in the areas of continuous security validation, detection improvement, and overall defensive readiness, with highlights including improved visibility into detection gaps, stronger security controls validation, better SOC readiness, and faster detection engineering improvements, which are improvement areas we have implemented in our project using AttackIQ."
"AttackIQ is solving a lot of the problems that I had before or that we as an organization had before, even the security team, so it is solving all my issues."
"After using AttackIQ, it has helped the team and the company improve on false positives and reduce risk, as most people are now capable of identifying how to work on detection, improving fine-tuning and all those things."
"Overall, I've had a good experience with the product. It's worked well for me."
"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 risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
 

Cons

"The main reasons I would not give it a full perfect score are the learning curve for new users and some opportunities for improvement in reporting, customization, and remediation guidance."
"The initial setup was quite difficult and took a long time."
"One area for improvement is the initial configuration complexity, which is very complex in the initial stage to configure the whole thing and integrate with the SOC, presenting a learning curve for organizations that are new to adversary emulation or continuous security validation, particularly concerning the initial setup scenario customization and workflow tuning."
"The initial setup was difficult. It was not straightforward."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS) solutions are best for your needs.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
7%
Retailer
7%
Retailer
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with AttackIQ?
Overall, AttackIQ is a strong platform, but there are a few areas where it could improve. One area is the learning curve for new users. Since the platform is deeply tied to MITRE ATT&CK mapping...
What is your primary use case for AttackIQ?
My main use case for AttackIQ has been validating security controls and testing detection coverage against MITRE ATT&CK techniques. Recently, I used it in a lab setup to simulate credential acc...
What advice do you have for others considering AttackIQ?
AttackIQ is very strong in continuous security validation, MITRE ATT&CK alignment, and realistic attack simulation. The main reasons I would not give it a full perfect score are the learning cu...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

DeepSurface
Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
TransUnion
Find out what your peers are saying about Horizon3.ai, Cymulate, Pentera and others in Breach and Attack Simulation (BAS). Updated: May 2026.
899,258 professionals have used our research since 2012.