We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Nessus 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 solution can scale well."
"I have experience with it on my attack stations, and it's pretty good to optimize. Personally, I think Nessus is quite a good product."
"Makes ransomware checking and OS auditing and implementation relatively easy."
"Ease of reviewing scores, identifying vulnerabilities, and getting information on them."
"I like its ease of use. It has the script that is pre-built in it, and you just got to know which ones you're looking for."
"Nessus is good at finding out what nodes you have in place. It will then provide you a report, by node, of what the vulnerabilities are. It does it quickly and stealthfully."
"The most valuable feature is the installation of Tenable which is incredibly easy."
"The most valuable feature of Tenable Nessus is the support it provides for any new vulnerabilities quickly."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"Consumes more system resources when it's running."
"Some things in the user interface could be better. The user interface could allow more adjustments to plugins. The price could also be better."
"EQA's and dashboards should be addressed in the next release."
"There could be an integration between Tenable Nessus and other Tenable products. It will help us manage all the solutions using one dashboard."
"The solution could improve security updates."
"One area with room for improvement is instead of there just being a PDF format for output, I'd like the option of an Excel spreadsheet, whereby I could better track remediation efforts and provide reporting off of that."
"Vulnerability recommendations are outdated and not in line with industry standards."
"Tenable Nessus could improve the price."
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 Tenable Nessus is ranked 3rd in Vulnerability Management with 75 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Tenable Nessus is rated 8.4. 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 Tenable Nessus writes "Unlimited assets for one price and quick, agentless results". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Avalor, whereas Tenable Nessus is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Pentera.
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.