We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Qualys VMDR based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management."The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"Qualys VM's best features are vulnerability management and customizable scoring."
"I find the most valuable features are the continuous monitoring. Even on premises, there is constant monitoring."
"The most valuable feature of Qualys Container Security is the detailed information in the reports and the remediation. This is done to make sure there are no vulnerabilities."
"The solution shows us classic categories, including high, medium, and low risks. It also shows critical items, and that gives us the advantage of prioritizing things."
"The integrations for this solution are very good. I use a different product for virtual patching of vulnerabilities and Qualys integrates well with that product."
"There are many features. Its reliability, ease of installation, ease of use, and the richness of the information provided are the most valuable features."
"Technical support is fantastic."
"The most valuable feature is the certificate management."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Finding things in management can be quite difficult."
"If anything, I would like to see the user interface modernized a bit more."
"Could use additional security for the app."
"Some of the older features could be polished instead of focusing on releasing new features."
"The only improvement I can think of is on the implementation side. At times it is a bit slow."
"The price could be better. Asset view is still a legacy feature. I'm not able to extract the information about the asset with complete details. It would be better if they fixed that in the next release. I know Qualys is already working on it, so I'm hopeful it will be available in the next five or six months. That would be something that's changed where I seek improvement."
"There seems to be a lack of easy onboarding into Qualys."
"We are moving away from Qualys to Defender ATP because I find that Defender ATP is much better at prioritizing the vulnerabilities that I should be looking at."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 10th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Qualys VMDR is ranked 3rd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 77 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Skybox Security Suite and Brinqa, whereas Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management.
See our list of best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management vendors.
We monitor all Risk-Based Vulnerability Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.