In Unified Vulnerability Management, the area that needs improvement is DNS-level security, which has been lacking for the last ten years. Other vendors, such as Cloudflare and Netskope, excel in DNS-level security that is crucial for reducing bandwidth utilization. With Unified Vulnerability Management, since we send all data to their cloud, we utilize internet bandwidth; ideally, blocking at the DNS level means only sending DNS queries to the cloud, conserving bandwidth. Competitors in ZTNA vulnerability management such as Cloudflare, Netskope, and Cisco Umbrella have better capability in this area.
Cyber Security Architect at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
Jul 23, 2026
I cannot answer what could be improved about Unified Vulnerability Management because I have not implemented it. I am not in a position to give feedback. I cannot comment on what other features or functionality I would like to see included in Unified Vulnerability Management because I do not know the price of the product, so I cannot comment on whether it is competitive in the market space. I have not done an analysis of that. All I have done is keep abreast of the technology as an architect, but nothing further.
Improvements are necessary because Unified Vulnerability Management has been in the market for only seven or eight years, and a lot of improvement must be required for performance. Automatic scaling is needed, especially since sometimes a data center can be down, particularly in certain geographical locations.
Service And Contract Manager at Colt Technology Services
MSP
Top 5
Feb 16, 2026
More AI features would be welcome, and the price should be lower because it is becoming more expensive, and customers are already looking for alternatives because of the pricing.
Head Of Network And Security at Nigeria LNG Limited
Real User
Top 5
Feb 13, 2026
Regarding the ability of Unified Vulnerability Management to generate customizable compliance reports, it is adequate, but sometimes you still need to be able to filter whatever the report generates to ensure accuracy and have a baseline on what the report provides. You should be able to filter and also take action on critical and non-critical reports. You get a lot of reports, but filtering them is essential. The negative side of Unified Vulnerability Management is that you need a skill set that is not readily available. You require a lot of training and personnel that understand the technology, so getting the skill set is a major issue for managing the technology.
Learn what your peers think about Unified Vulnerability Management. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: August 2026.
Unified Vulnerability Management provides comprehensive capabilities to identify and address security threats, offering detailed insights and proactive risk management within one platform.Its integrated approach enables businesses to efficiently detect vulnerabilities across their digital landscape. With real-time analytics and robust reporting, Unified Vulnerability Management helps organizations prioritize security measures, ensuring critical vulnerabilities are addressed promptly. Its...
In Unified Vulnerability Management, the area that needs improvement is DNS-level security, which has been lacking for the last ten years. Other vendors, such as Cloudflare and Netskope, excel in DNS-level security that is crucial for reducing bandwidth utilization. With Unified Vulnerability Management, since we send all data to their cloud, we utilize internet bandwidth; ideally, blocking at the DNS level means only sending DNS queries to the cloud, conserving bandwidth. Competitors in ZTNA vulnerability management such as Cloudflare, Netskope, and Cisco Umbrella have better capability in this area.
I cannot answer what could be improved about Unified Vulnerability Management because I have not implemented it. I am not in a position to give feedback. I cannot comment on what other features or functionality I would like to see included in Unified Vulnerability Management because I do not know the price of the product, so I cannot comment on whether it is competitive in the market space. I have not done an analysis of that. All I have done is keep abreast of the technology as an architect, but nothing further.
Improvements are necessary because Unified Vulnerability Management has been in the market for only seven or eight years, and a lot of improvement must be required for performance. Automatic scaling is needed, especially since sometimes a data center can be down, particularly in certain geographical locations.
More AI features would be welcome, and the price should be lower because it is becoming more expensive, and customers are already looking for alternatives because of the pricing.
Regarding the ability of Unified Vulnerability Management to generate customizable compliance reports, it is adequate, but sometimes you still need to be able to filter whatever the report generates to ensure accuracy and have a baseline on what the report provides. You should be able to filter and also take action on critical and non-critical reports. You get a lot of reports, but filtering them is essential. The negative side of Unified Vulnerability Management is that you need a skill set that is not readily available. You require a lot of training and personnel that understand the technology, so getting the skill set is a major issue for managing the technology.