We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Skybox Security Suite 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 →
"When you import all the assets that you have, like desktops, servers, networks, devices, routers, and then firewalls, and other products, then Skybox makes like, a model of the network, but with context. So, it is not just a model in VIZIO. Or something like it like that. You get the model with context, and, like, it looks like a real network in a real-time. So you can check your network and the security of your network on that model."
"The performance could be good because we chose it at the time, but it is too complex for us to appreciate its performance because we lack the necessary skills."
"It's very supportive and very user-friendly."
"Robust modules can be used for different parts of network security."
"The product's most valuable feature is vulnerability management."
"It has a good policy management feature and can provide customers with good quality outputs."
"It's given us more visibility in terms of what are the kinds of configurations that are on these devices, and how many of these are stale rules. So it's helped greatly in terms of cleaning up of rules, for sure. And it has definitely given us a more secure way of backing up the configuration on these devices."
"Skybox deployment is simple, and it's very useful."
"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Cons →
"They are not satisfied with the complexity of the solution and the price."
"The most recent update was not tested with all of the vendors before it was released, so some of the features are misbehaving."
"During implementation, we realised approximately 30 devices were not supported by the Skybox platform."
"It's expensive."
"The solution was quite technical. It would be easier to manage if the solution was more specific about aspects of the solution and provided more advisory around how to use it effectively. It would help users a lot if they were more clear about everything."
"The solution needs to move improve its interface to a full web browser version that is more accessible and doesn't require installation for use."
"The solution does not support certain devices or vendors in some regions or countries due to regulations."
"There are multiple dashboards but no custom dashboard. It would be good to include a custom dashboard so that we can actually choose which field and what kinds of things we want to look at."
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 Skybox Security Suite is ranked 19th in Vulnerability Management with 34 reviews. Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is rated 8.0, while Skybox Security Suite is rated 7.8. 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 Skybox Security Suite writes "Efficient in vulnerability management, stable and easy to use ". Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is most compared with Rapid7 InsightVM, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Security Center, Ivanti Neurons for RBVM and Tenable Vulnerability Management, whereas Skybox Security Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, Tufin Orchestration Suite, FireMon Security Manager, Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Tenable Nessus.
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.