We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Rapid7 InsightVM 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 →
"I liked the dashboard on it. I could customize my dashboard with different widgets and different heat maps."
"We are very satisfied with the reports, as they provide us with the information that is required for our management."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its dashboards."
"The most important aspect of the solution is that it rarely gives false positives, especially compared to other products. It provides very clear reports for our IT teams to look at."
"Has great reporting features."
"The remediation project is a pretty effective because it allows us, as clients or countries, to choose specific assets and set limitations on them for a certain period which allows us to track and follow up on those limitations. However, when it comes to real-time monitoring and live dashboards, InsightVM doesn't quite fit the bill. It's not a real-time solution and is not instant."
"NeXpose is a pretty good vulnerability scanner... There's a nice dashboard."
"It is stable and scalable."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"There are not enough templates, and the reporting is weak with this solution."
"There needs to be much clearer instructions surrounding scanning."
"The reporting is very bad when you compare it with other vulnerability assessment tools."
"The reporting is a little bit tricky because it can be difficult to exactly pinpoint some of the assets to filter them and generate a report."
"There have been instances where technical support takes a long time to update the status of a ticket, which is something that can be improved."
"The solution could improve by being more secure."
"I would say that it improved our visibility, but it left things open."
"There is room for improvement on its cloud side. In the next release I would like to see better reporting."
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 Rapid7 InsightVM is ranked 4th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 55 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 InsightVM is rated 8.0. 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 Rapid7 InsightVM writes "You can scan a network, and receive recommendations to address vulnerabilities with the click of a button". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Skybox Security Suite and Brinqa, whereas Rapid7 InsightVM is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Lacework.
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.