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 →
"The initial setup was good. We didn't have any problems with it."
"Intuitive and easy to use."
"They also have threat detection which maps threats. There is a feed that comes from Qualys when a new vulnerability is found. It tells us which machines are infected with that vulnerability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the external channel."
"Performs automated, regular scans in the network."
"Qualys VM had a recent upgrade and the newer version is supporting the cloud."
"I am impressed with the VMDR feature."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"What we have found is that the solution is not closely tied with the patch management. It is okay with newer ones, like Windows 10 machines; it gives the correct patch. But for Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008, it does not give us the correct patch so we have to manually identify the patches. This is a major problem."
"When you want to cover yourself for scalability, you will be charged for the number you place on the scan itself."
"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."
"They have integrated with other third parties, but it is still not viable."
"The tool needs to improve the adding assets and report generation features. I would like to see the policy scan of offline appliances in the product's future releases."
"It's too early for me to say if there is any room for improvement since we're in the first couple of months of using this solution."
"Qualys does have an on-prem solution, but it is very expensive."
"It is a struggle to be able to pull our report and to be able to do onboarding using automated tools."
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.