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

JupiterOne vs Tenable Security Center 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

JupiterOne
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
51st
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
30th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS) (21st), Cyber Asset Attack Surface Management (CAASM) (5th)
Tenable Security Center
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
6th
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
11th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of JupiterOne is 0.4%, up from 0.2% 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%
JupiterOne0.4%
Other96.8%
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

CO
Security Analyst at a outsourcing company with 501-1,000 employees
Unified asset visibility has improved investigations and now simplifies tracking security assets
There are some features that I have shared with our customer service manager. One of them that is relevant to us at this time is the need for better determination of unified devices. Currently, JupiterOne uses hostname weights, MAC addresses, or IP addresses to tie devices together, but we have actually requested a way for us to make those determinations ourselves. For example, when externally scanning a device using Qualys, internally it gives an IP address or FQDN, while externally it might be different. We want to be able to decide ourselves that these two devices are the same device even when they have different names and IP addresses for external and internal use. The unified devices feature is valuable and did not used to exist, and it has been fantastic. However, I believe more can be done regarding unified devices, and giving users the privilege to tie them together would be a good addition to the platform. One of the other things that interest us in JupiterOne and why we really wanted to use the tool is the compliance feature. We wanted to use it to track our compliance since we are ISO 27001 certified. However, the compliance module has not worked well, and we have had to continue tracking our compliance manually with the tools we use. Although there are some works in progress to improve the compliance part of the tool, I think if they can get it up to speed, that would be a really good improvement.
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

"JupiterOne helps us aggregate all those things on one single platform, allowing us to quickly identify what environment that asset lives in and what type of asset it is."
"The product’s UI is pretty decent and fast."
"Having Tenable is a requirement; it is money well-spent in that it focuses us to work on problems that are prioritized and it allows us to cut down on the manual integration of multiple reports from Microsoft and Linux, etc., so that running with a much smaller team of two people probably saves 80 percent of manpower."
"The tool provides us insight into the happens of the network and its hosts. It provides me with a list of hosts."
"The solution is completely stable and operation is user-friendly."
"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."
"I find Tenable SC to be a very scalable product."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"The usability is really good; it's very intuitive and any person can use it, you do not have to be an expert in vulnerability analysis."
 

Cons

"However, the compliance module has not worked well, and we have had to continue tracking our compliance manually with the tools we use."
"You can only write Python queries in Jupiter, not other languages, like, SQL or PySpark."
"Additional costs are associated with using the solution, as additional scanners are required for different endpoints connected to the Tenable Security Center. If Tenable Security Center could extract information from these scanners automatically rather than manually, it would enhance user-friendliness for customers."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
"Tenable's reporting engine needs improvement. It needs to be more efficient and add more features."
"Support could be faster."
"The biggest issue I have with the solution is when I'm using the scanning it picks up the original DNS of that device."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"I think the company should redo their web page because the way things are now there are a lot of things you can't do."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Tenable.sc is more expensive than its competitors."
"I use a local license to perform penetration testing and I'm pretty happy with everything when it comes to pricing and licensing."
"The pricing is more than Nexpose."
"Though reasonable, the main competitor of Tenable SC, Rapid7, offers a more aggressive and better priced product."
"My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs. The pricing of the solution falls in the mid-range level, so it is not too expensive"
"It is slightly more expensive than other solutions in the same sphere."
"I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, where ten is expensive. It is the most expensive tool my company is using."
"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.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
15%
Construction Company
15%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
13%
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 Enterprise12
Large Enterprise27
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with JupiterOne?
There are some features that I have shared with our customer service manager. One of them that is relevant to us at this time is the need for better determination of unified devices. Currently, Jup...
What is your primary use case for JupiterOne?
Our main use case for JupiterOne is as an asset catalog tool where we document all our assets that are integrated from different platforms such as Device42, Qualys, Microsoft M365, and Defender. We...
What advice do you have for others considering JupiterOne?
JupiterOne has many features. Although none comes to mind almost immediately, I know it often depends on how we are able to write or craft the queries. JupiterOne has been very instrumental to me i...
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

No data available
Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific
Find out what your peers are saying about JupiterOne vs. Tenable Security Center and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.