We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is up-to-date and helps prevent zero-day attacks."
"The solution helps identify threats and vulnerabilities."
"The product’s most valuable features are compliance, recommendations, and inventories."
"The product's stability is very high...The scalability of the product is amazing."
"One valuable feature is the Microsoft Security Scorecard."
"It basically reviews our threat landscape vulnerability."
"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."
"The solution is one of the most, if not the most, stable product available."
"The solution has a lean and easy-to-use interface that is not confusing to first-time users."
"The most important features are the dashboard and reporting. The dashboard provides statistics with graphs and bar charts for our management."
"Tenable.sc is user-friendly."
"Initial setup was pretty straightforward."
"The tool provides us insight into the happens of the network and its hosts. It provides me with a list of hosts."
"Integration can be improved."
"The technical support takes too much time to resolve tickets."
"It is challenging to extract and customize reports from the system."
"The general support could be improved."
"The setup phase of the product is not that easy and needs a person to have a certain level of expertise."
"The solution is expensive."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"Though the solution's technical support is responsive, they do take a lot of time, making it one of the solution's shortcomings that needs improvement."
"There's a lot of information being streamed out of the reports. What would be nice, and maybe we just haven't found it, would be more of an executive-type view. We still expect it to collect all this information, but we would like a feature that would allow us to show it to an executive or a director or someone like that and give them some type of high-level overview but not get into the nitty-gritty."
"We experienced some difficulties with the solution’s support."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
More Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is ranked 8th in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 5 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is rated 8.2, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management writes "The vulnerability assessment is very accurate because it runs directly into the vulnerability database". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is most compared with Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Vulnerability Management and Amazon Inspector, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Horizon3.ai. See our Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Risk-Based Vulnerability Management vendors and best 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.