We compared Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus based on our users reviews in six parameters. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
The setup process for Qualys VMDR is quick and uncomplicated, taking only a few minutes. However, setting up Qualys Container Security can be intricate and time-consuming. In contrast, Tenable Nessus is described as straightforward and effortless to set up, taking anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of hours.
Qualys VMDR is notable for its effective prioritization system, ongoing monitoring, customizable dashboard, and extensive vulnerability overview. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus excels in vulnerability assessment, reporting, and ease of use.
Both Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus have areas that could be improved. Qualys VMDR could enhance user experience, UI design, SLA tracking, batch prioritization, integration, reporting, and dashboards. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus could improve integration, pricing, user interface, reporting, support, and learning resources.
Both Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus provide valuable returns on investment. Qualys VMDR prioritizes the reduction of cybersecurity risks, while Tenable Nessus places emphasis on proactive vulnerability discovery and patch deployment.
The customer service for Qualys VMDR has received both positive and negative feedback. Some customers appreciate the convenience of reaching out to a global team and the implementation of suggested improvements. However, there are concerns about the response time and the expertise of the support staff. Tenable Nessus also has a mix of reviews. Some customers find the support to be prompt and useful, while others believe that the support team could be more knowledgeable and that the solutions provided are not always effective.
Comparison Results
Based on the reviews, Qualys VMDR and Tenable Nessus have similar initial setup processes that are straightforward and easy. However, Qualys VMDR stands out for its user-friendly setup and maintenance, including automatic agent updates. On the other hand, Tenable Nessus is highly effective in vulnerability assessment and reporting, and is also praised for its affordability and scalability. Qualys VMDR is valued for its prioritization mechanism and comprehensive overview of vulnerabilities, while Tenable Nessus is commended for its real-time monitoring and self-updating engine. Customer service and support for both products have received mixed reviews, with some users finding the support teams responsive and helpful, while others had negative experiences or did not require support.
"Intuitive and easy to use."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It's a good product. After the scan our internet works well. It scans our security posture."
"Qualys VM's best features are vulnerability management and customizable scoring."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"It is a simple solution that makes scanning easy. You just give it a scheduled task, and it will do everything for you."
"There are fewer false positives when using this solution."
"Performs automated, regular scans in the network."
"The product's most valuable features are vulnerability and asset management. It can define the rules and validate the configuration."
"I like this solution because it is complete. It can scan and check many types of vulnerabilities. It can also check for compliance."
"The trial version is very good for testing whether it will suit your needs."
"The stability is very good."
"It is a mature tool."
"The solution is great for scanning servers."
"The reports are pretty nice and easy to understand."
"We looked at Tenable, Qualys and Rapid7. We found Tenable was the best of all three."
"They have integrated with other third parties, but it is still not viable."
"We are moving away from Qualys to Defender ATP because I find that Defender ATP is much better at prioritizing the vulnerabilities that I should be looking at."
"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."
"Qualys VM's vulnerability scan could be improved, especially the number of CVE numbers it can manage at a time."
"The reporting in this solution can be improved."
"The disadvantage of working with Qualys is that the graphical interface is quite outdated."
"Sometimes we face a problem with accessing the tool and not getting an expected result. From a technology point of view, they need to look into this."
"Finding things in management can be quite difficult."
"To be honest, I haven't used it much to tell you that these are the things that should be improved. But I believe the UI should be enhanced somewhat. For example, there are two ways to find a report, and people are frequently confused as to which is the correct method for locating a full report. Sometimes they go in the opposite direction, so this is an area that may be improved."
"The price could be more reasonable. I used the free Nessus version in my lab with which you can only scan 16 IP addresses. If I wanted to put it in the lab in my network at work, and I'm doing a test project that has over 30 nodes in it, I can't use the free version of Nessus to scan it because there are only 16 IP addresses. I can't get an accurate scan. The biggest thing with all the cybersecurity tools out there nowadays, especially in 2020, is that there's a rush to get a lot of skilled cybersecurity analysts out there. Some of these companies need to realize that a lot of us are working from home and doing proof of concepts, and some of them don't even offer trials, or you get a trial and it is only 16 IP addresses. I can't really do anything with it past 16. I'm either guessing or I'm doing double work to do my scans. Let's say there was a license for 50 users or 50 IP addresses. I would spend about 200 bucks for that license to accomplish my job. This is the biggest complaint I have as of right now with all cybersecurity tools, including Rapid7, out there, especially if I'm in a company that is trying to build its cybersecurity program. How am I going to tell my boss, who has no real budget of what he needs to build his cybersecurity program, to go spend over $100,000 for a tool he has never seen, whereas, it would pack the punch if I could say, "Let me spend 200 bucks for a 50 user IP address license of this product, do a proof of concept to scan 50 nodes, and provide the reason for why we need it." I've been a director, and now I'm an ISO. When I was a director, I had a budget for an IT department, so I know how budgets work. As an ISO, the only thing that's missing from my C-level is I don't have to deal with employees and budgets, but I have everything else. It's hard for me to build the program and say, "Hey, I need these tools." If I can't get a trial, I would scratch that off the list and find something else. I'm trying to set up Tenable.io to do external PCI scans. The documentation says to put in your IP addresses or your external IP addresses. However, if the IP address is not routable, then it says that you have to use an internal agent to scan. This means that you set up a Nessus agent internally and scan, which makes sense. However, it doesn't work because when you use the plugin and tell it that it is a PCI external, it says, "You cannot use an internal agent to scan external." The documentation needs to be a little bit more clear about that. It needs to say if you're using the PCI external plugin, all IP addresses must be external and routable. It should tell the person who's setting it up, "Wait a minute. If you have an MPLS network and you're in a multi-tenant environment and the people who hold the network schema only provide you with the IP addresses just for your tenant, then you are not going to know what the actual true IP address that Tenable needs to do a PCI scan." I've been working on Tenable.io to set up PCI scans for the last ten days. I have been going back and forth to the network thinking I need this or that only to find out that I'm teaching their team, "Hey, you know what, guys? I need you to look past your MPLS network. I need you to go to the edge's edge. Here's who you need to ask to give me the whitelist to allow here." I had the blurb that says the plugin for external PCI must be reachable, and you cannot use an internal agent. I could have cut a few days because I thought I had it, but then when I ran it, it said that you can't run it this way. I wasted a few hours in a day. In terms of new features, it doesn't require new features. It is a tool that has been out there for years. It is used in the cybersecurity community. It has got the CV database in it, and there are other plugins that you could pass through. It has got APIs you can attach to it. They can just improve the database and continue adding to the database and the plugins to make sure those don't have false positives. If you're a restaurant and you focus on fried chicken, you have no business doing hamburgers."
"The product must be more comprehensive."
"There is room for improvement in finishing the transition to the cloud. We'd like to see them keep on improving the Tenable.io product, so that we can migrate to it entirely, instead of having to keep the Tenable.sc on-prem product."
"Multiple steps to create an actionable plan will be a great addition to Nessus."
"Remediation needs improvement."
"The problems I faced with Tenable Nessus were related to its dashboard's customization capabilities and its ability to provide data to third-party sources."
"Tenable Nessus is not feasible for a large company."
Qualys VMDR is ranked 3rd in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 76 reviews while Tenable Nessus is ranked 3rd in Vulnerability Management with 75 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Tenable Nessus is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Nessus writes "Unlimited assets for one price and quick, agentless results". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, whereas Tenable Nessus is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Security Center, Tenable Vulnerability Management, Pentera and Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management. See our Qualys VMDR vs. Tenable Nessus report.
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.