Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) vs RedSeal comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
15th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (12th)
RedSeal
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
25th
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2024, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 3.4%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of RedSeal is 0.2%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
Unique Categories:
Cisco Security Portfolio
1.0%
No other categories found
 

Featured Reviews

AshishPaliwal - PeerSpot reviewer
May 19, 2022
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.
Sajid Mukhtar - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 3, 2021
Provides a graphical overview of our network and is easy to deploy, but needs a user-friendly interface and a feature for compliance audit policy
Sometimes, it required us to refresh the configuration. When we integrated any of the configurations into the device, sometimes, it could not detect the exact picture of that device. So, we had to reset the device to see that if it was giving true-positive results or false-positive results. In some cases, we were not able to get true-positive results. There was some kind of bug in that version. Its interface is not user-friendly and needs to be improved. It takes time to understand the interface and various options. Skybox has quite a user-friendly interface. They could provide a feature for compliance audit policy if it is already not there. A compliance audit policy ensures that all configurations are based on the best practices standards, such as CIS benchmarks standard or other similar standards. It provides visibility about whether your device configuration is based on best practices or not. Usually, such a feature is provided by other solutions such as Meteor or Tenable Nessus.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
"This is the only solution in the world that gives you a digital resilience score."
"The most valuable features are network mapping and configuration."
"RedSeal integrates the network and gives us a visual or graphical overview of our network. If an organization is geographically dispersed, for instance, with one office in Canada and one office in the Philippines, the whole network, including all devices, is integrated into RedSeal, and you can see from where the traffic is going in and out."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"Sometimes, it required us to refresh the configuration. When we integrated any of the configurations into the device, sometimes, it could not detect the exact picture of that device. So, we had to reset the device to see that if it was giving true-positive results or false-positive results. In some cases, we were not able to get true-positive results. There was some kind of bug in that version. Its interface is not user-friendly and needs to be improved. It takes time to understand the interface and various options. Skybox has quite a user-friendly interface. They could provide a feature for compliance audit policy if it is already not there. A compliance audit policy ensures that all configurations are based on the best practices standards, such as CIS benchmarks standard or other similar standards. It provides visibility about whether your device configuration is based on best practices or not. Usually, such a feature is provided by other solutions such as Meteor or Tenable Nessus."
"The dashboard should be improved to make correlating data easier to do."
"One of the areas of concern is the GUI. It is important to our customers that the GUI looks beautiful. It's a Java Client, so you have a Java dependency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
"The pricing is based on the number of endpoints and devices, and we have seen it range from mid-five figures to low six figures."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
792,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
23%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Retailer
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Government
22%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
No data available
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
United States Postal Service, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Interval International
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Qualys, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: June 2024.
792,098 professionals have used our research since 2012.