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

BMC Helix Automation Console vs Tenable Security Center comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 8, 2026

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

BMC Helix Automation Console
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
56th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tenable Security Center
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (11th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of BMC Helix Automation Console is 0.9%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Security Center is 2.8%, down from 5.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Tenable Security Center2.8%
BMC Helix Automation Console0.9%
Other96.3%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

ShashiGupta - PeerSpot reviewer
Soo at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
Reasonably Priced
In terms of improvement, the product could benefit from streamlining the implementation process, particularly regarding customization. Currently, the process involves navigating through multiple layers of custom and staging forms, which can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Another aspect to consider is the foundation data provided out of the box, particularly regarding categorization and its associated values. This foundational data may only sometimes meet the mark, as organizations often require more flexibility to tailor it to their needs. Discovering hardware, for instance, can lead to different category processing needs, with certain layers providing minimal benefits. The challenge lies in the inability to directly specify servers, hardware, software, and their respective details, highlighting a need for improvement in this area. As per the current state of the Helix product, it has seen some resolution to issues but still faces challenges when adding more attributes. It can lead to restrictions, particularly with the progressive view page, limiting flexibility in certain cases. While benefits can be gained in other aspects, such drawbacks are common. Improvements are necessary to enhance flexibility in this regard. Exploring alternative solutions like containerization or cloud services may offer opportunities for optimization, requiring careful consideration due to the complexity involved. I'm still determining the current strategy. While there have been improvements in the latest version, there's still a need for further enhancements in an extended version. Additionally, stakeholders, including manufacturing companies, emphasize the importance of fine-tuning performance for the Helix product. The search functionality remains problematic, often taking more than 15 seconds, undermining reliability.
reviewer1534134 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Information Security at a consultancy with 1,001-5,000 employees
Centralized analytics have strengthened patch visibility and support efficient regulatory reporting
From my experience, I assess the product's analytics capabilities as successful. It helped us significantly with patching and managing the risk of the patching process across all our environments, including network devices with Windows and Unix systems. The product covered several environments and gave us exactly what we needed in our environment. Tenable Security Center's centralized platform helped with risk assessment and management across our IT environments. It covered the patching process, and we previously faced many issues regarding how to patch different environments, how to monitor the patching process, and whether it was successful or not. We obtained good reports showing when patches were closed and the details of each patch, including who executed it and everything related to the patching process until it was closed. This gave us good details about the process which helped us significantly in our reporting and even in audits, whether internal or external. We learned how to close audit issues safely and successfully. We used the dashboards for real-time threat insights and extracted several dashboards from Tenable Security Center. We use these dashboards in our cybersecurity dashboard and committees that we have. These dashboards are part of our committees, especially the cybersecurity committee and other committees that we attend.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's reasonably priced."
"Takes reports from other vulnerabilities."
"In terms of scalability, I can only tell you my experience from our clients: I had Remedy installed, and then we installed Discovery, two months ago we installed Server Automation and we've now completed the installation with Vulnerability Management, and everything is inter-operational, it's all automated now, and our customers are happy."
"The customer service and support team at Tenable were extremely helpful."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"Of all the tools I've used, when it comes to managing the vulnerabilities and risks of a whole enterprise environment, I don't think I've used a better tool than Security Center."
"This solution is very customizable compared to everything else I've seen on the market, so you can easily customize it to suit your needs."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"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."
 

Cons

"With BMC I'd like to see the ability to integrate with other software."
"No third-party applications or integrations with additional software solutions."
"In terms of improvement, the product could benefit from streamlining the implementation process, particularly regarding customization."
"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."
"There's a lot of information being streamed out of the reports. What would be nice, and maybe we just haven't found it, would be more of an executive-type view. We still expect it to collect all this information, but we would like a feature that would allow us to show it to an executive or a director or someone like that and give them some type of high-level overview but not get into the nitty-gritty."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"Security can always be improved."
"The user interface can be improved."
"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."
"For downloading reports, we have to go to the scan and then we have to go to the reports and download the Excel or CSV or PDF. I think these menus and clicks can be minimized."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The tool costs around 15,000 Saudi riyals monthly."
"Costing is pretty reasonable compared to the competition."
"We pay around 60,000 on a yearly basis."
"The tool provides competitive pricing."
"It is a bit expensive. Everything is included in the license."
"This solution's price is quite high."
"We're happy with the licensing cost and find it affordable."
"The price of Tenable SC is expensive, we pay approximately €70,000 for the license annually. We have to pay for each IP test. The cost of other solutions is far less, such as Nessus Professional, which is €3,000 annually."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Insurance Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
9%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
What is your primary use case for Tenable SC?
The typical use case for Tenable Security Center is that it is an on-premise solution, and it can use the agent and active scanning, which is needed by governmental organizations and manufacturers,...
 

Also Known As

TrueSight Vulnerability Management, SecOps Response Service, BladeLogic Threat Director, BMC Helix Remediate
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Online Business Systems
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Helix Automation Console vs. Tenable Security Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.