We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Rapid7 InsightVM 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 performance is good."
"The risk score that they provide makes it easier to find out the biggest risks. It helped the security officers to understand where the biggest risks are so that they can act on them. They can instruct their IT teams to give them a higher priority and mitigate them."
"The discovery and prioritization of vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature is the vulnerability scan."
"The remediation project is a pretty effective because it allows us, as clients or countries, to choose specific assets and set limitations on them for a certain period which allows us to track and follow up on those limitations. However, when it comes to real-time monitoring and live dashboards, InsightVM doesn't quite fit the bill. It's not a real-time solution and is not instant."
"NeXpose is a pretty good vulnerability scanner... There's a nice dashboard."
"It's very scalable."
"This solution is very easy to use and easy to install."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"The on-premise updates could improve from Rapid7 InsightVM."
"There are end-user needs and expectations that are being overlooked in the development that could be addressed by appointing a customer advisory board."
"There is room for improvement on its cloud side. In the next release I would like to see better reporting."
"The drawback is that it is still not a fully SaaS solution, so you must deploy a console."
"We found that after you passed an endpoint, it didn't always reflect it in the next scan. I'm not sure if it was a glitch or some issue with the product's software. That was never clear. That was always an issue and something that definitely needed improvement."
"The product does not have the capability to do dynamic scanning of non-web applications."
"This solution creates false-positives which can cause issues with reporting."
"The solution needs to improve its vulnerability design to include CVC results."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is ranked 11th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 1 review while Rapid7 InsightVM is ranked 4th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 55 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Rapid7 InsightVM is rated 8.0. 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 Rapid7 InsightVM writes "You can scan a network, and receive recommendations to address vulnerabilities with the click of a button". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM, Brinqa and Avalor, whereas Rapid7 InsightVM is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Lacework.
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.