We performed a comparison between Brinqa and Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) 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 most valuable features of Brinqa are its data integration capabilities."
"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pros →
"Brinqa could improve in terms of the speed of their service and resource provision."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Brinqa is ranked 12th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 11th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review. Brinqa is rated 7.0, while Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Brinqa writes "Allows us to configure the risk algorithm to suit our specific needs". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) writes "Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability". Brinqa is most compared with Vulcan Cyber, Axonius, Avalor, Nucleus and Tenable Nessus, whereas Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Avalor.
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.