Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM by Kenna Security, which was acquired by Cisco in June of 2021), is a vulnerability management platform featuring real-time cyber-risk analysis and predictive modeling based on intelligence feeds and global attack telemetries to provide accurate, reliable risk prioritization and protection.
N/A
Rapid7 InsightVM
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
InsightVM is presented as the next evolution of Nexpose, by Rapid7. This Insight cloud-based solution features everything included in Nexpose, such as Adaptive Security and the proprietary Real Risk score, and extends visibility into cloud and containerized infrastructure. InsightVM also offers advanced remediation, tracking, and reporting capabilities not included in Nexpose.
$19
per GB
Pricing
Cisco Vulnerability Management
Rapid7 InsightVM
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Log Management
$19
per GB
Vulnerability Management
$22
per asset
insightIDR
$52
per asset
Application Security
$2,000
per app
insignConnect
Contact sales team
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Vulnerability Management
Rapid7 InsightVM
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Vulnerability Management
Rapid7 InsightVM
Features
Cisco Vulnerability Management
Rapid7 InsightVM
Threat Intelligence
Comparison of Threat Intelligence features of Product A and Product B
Cisco Vulnerability Management
10.0
Ratings
23% above category average
Rapid7 InsightVM
7.4
Ratings
7% below category average
Threat Recognition
10.00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Vulnerability Classification
10.00 Ratings
9.30 Ratings
Automated Alerts and Reporting
10.00 Ratings
9.30 Ratings
Threat Analysis
10.00 Ratings
7.40 Ratings
Threat Intelligence Reporting
10.00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Automated Threat Identification
10.00 Ratings
6.70 Ratings
Network Analytics
00 Ratings
5.30 Ratings
Vulnerability Management Tools
Comparison of Vulnerability Management Tools features of Product A and Product B
For user end devices this product has worked great for us. We have been able to find vulnerabilities/risks with certain software in bulk on devices and implement fixes for them very quickly. CVM has also provided us visabity on all our devices that we never had before and we can close gaps security wise a lot faster knowing now where problems are at
I think Rapid7 InsightVM is well suited for large enterprise customers with a lot of assets. It integrates well with a number of different ITSM solutions which I think is very good. There are not many CIS benchmarking tools on the market and Rapid7 InsightVM does a very good job at benchmarking. I think where Rapid7 InsightVM falls down a little is on false positive vulnerabilities. Sometime you there a few positive results on vulnerabily discovery. Tuning the settings for scan engines can sometimes be trick as well.
The API is also a great tool for us to automate lots of routine procedures like scan and report of asset(s) BY EMAIL.
Tagging. It helps sort out results and reports for respective assets Owner for remediation without a lengthy report including unnecessary information for that particular team.
SQL Reporting. It provides advanced reporting and export capabilities that you can not find in the stock report template.
Devices found and scanned are never removed. Removal must be done manually with no option for automation.
The database can be fragile. Ours quietly corrupted and progressively degraded until we had to restore and lose 6 months of data. Still didn't fix it and had to be rebuilt again losing all data.
Workflow for delegating remediation is supposed to be helpful, but can also become cumbersome.
Scheduling can become a nightmare if not monitored closely. We found jobs had failed to run because the server had gone offline. When the server came online, it did not try to run missed jobs. Running missed jobs all at once can overload the server, but searching for and launching a large number of missed jobs manually is a pain.
CVM provides a very easy to understand and use interfaces. Dashboards and reporting are compiled nicely when risk meters are created. After initial setup of software cisco onboarding teams do an amazing job going over all areas of this software to provide best overall usability of the product. Against other tools setup and usability is at a higher standard
While I think it is a great tool and platform, I believe it (like all tools and solutions) is always evolving and the needs for clients are changing as the industry evolves and threats are upgraded. Cost is good, and support is helpful. Some things could be more granular and others could be easier to understand
I gave it a seven due to the functionality and general ease of use after the initial setup headaches, but compared to Qualys, Rapid7 Nexpose falls short on features and ease of use. Their support drags this rating down a point as well. I have gone weeks with no update on semi-critical issues and typically have to make call after call to get a semi-coherent response.
We run a flavor of multiple products and CVM enhances/complements those tools by pinpointing where the vulnerabilities are at on our network. Intune and Automox being products CVM works well with when its time to patch affected systems. Tenable we used prior to CVM and its product was too complex and clunky and always had issues with asset duplication. CVM simplified vulnerability scanning and made it a lot easier to manage compared to Tenable
I think Tenable is very comparable and they are both leaders in this space. I evaluated both of them side-by-side and ultimately decided to go with Rapid7. Tenable did have a slight edge on the amount of information I was getting from the machines, but I landed on R7 because I found the features of the InsightVM tool to be more useful. They both get the job done, but I found InsightVM a better experience to use on a day-to-day basis and had better quality of life features that I was looking for.
It certainly has a more positive impact than negative impact while performing the scans. Nexpose can find report vulnerabilities that our other scanner fails to identify during the scan because of its defined scan templates.
Also, even if the scan is not being performed due to some issues like reachability, whitelisting, etc. it will try to give scan results unlike QualysGuard which just marks the asset as unreachable.
