Pentest-Tools.com helps security professionals find, validate, and communicate vulnerabilities, whether they’re internal teams defending at scale, MSPs juggling clients, or consultants under pressure. The service provides coverage across network, web, API, and cloud assets, and includes built-in exploit validation to turn every scan into credible, actionable insight. Boasting users among over 2,000 teams in 119 countries for use…
$95
per month 5 assets included
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.
Offers a great number of tools in one interface, giving you a single pane of glass to work from. Therefore, it's favourable compared to some of these other products, that do similar things but are less intuitive and less easy to use. This makes it not only easier to use, but …
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 …
Rapid7 InsightVM is more cost effective than the other solution on the market. It is easy to deploy and the user interface is easy to use and intuative. We select Rapid7 InsightVM mainly because it integrates well with ServiceNow compared to the other solution that were …
Rapid7 InsightVM is a more professional tool than NESSUS because historically, it was based on metasploit which is a powerful pentesting and exploiting tool. InsightVM covers more attacking scenarios and vulnerabilities than competitors and still a leader in this domain.cloud …
Nessus Pro does scans, but does not maintain an inventory from scan to scan. There is no history for a specific device, you have to look inside the results of each scan. Search across inventory is non-existent. There are no dashboards for data analysis. This is no tracking …
Tenable has a more refined look for the reporting that it provides as a result of scanning events, but Nexpose seems to have a better ability to help quantify risk and help prioritize the work needed to get the quickest security result for the team and the company. The Nessus …
This website is well suited for organisations that perform regular security assessments. In particular, external scans and reconnaissance. As an example, I am able to run a report on our Wordpress website to enable me to see whether we are missing any important security updates. We found it to be very useful for training new security analysts, due to the straightforward GUI. You can work on the same projects together to help you to do this. Having it laid out in front of them helps them to understand the concepts much easier than using dozens of different tools to achieve the same goals, and also speeds up training. If you're a personal user it may not be appropriate due to price. If you are a personal user, I would advise using the many open source tools there are that do the same things. The strength of this platform is that it combines them into a single pane of glass, but you can achieve the same things with other tools if necessary. For example, there are many other tools that you could use to run a UDP port scan that do not cost money (EG NMAP)
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.
No logging for things like scanning. This means you don't actually know when the scan has failed if you're not immediately on the ball.
Reports could look better. It would be good to be able to customise the report with some different styles to suit your company's branding.
Could have better tutorials.
It may be useful to have a feature similar to Microsoft Secure Score, which compares your organisation to similar ones, so that you have a reference of how secure your environment actually is.
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.
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.
Offers a great number of tools in one interface, giving you a single pane of glass to work from. Therefore, it's favourable compared to some of these other products, that do similar things but are less intuitive and less easy to use. This makes it not only easier to use, but easier to report results to your customers. Also, although the price point can seem high, once you start adding multiple paid tools that do the same job, there probably isn't a massive amount of difference (if any)
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.
