No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) vs Qualys Exposure Management comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 13, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (11th)
Qualys Exposure Management
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
101
Ranking in other categories
IT Asset Management (3rd), Vulnerability Management (2nd), Configuration Management Databases (3rd), Container Security (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 1.9%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Exposure Management is 9.7%, down from 15.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Qualys Exposure Management9.7%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)1.9%
Other88.4%
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

AshishPaliwal - PeerSpot reviewer
Self-employed at Self-employed
Offers contextual prioritization and risk-based remediation of vulnerability
An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite. There are a lot of GRC suites available, like Archer, MetricStream, Rsam, Protiviti, for example. So how would a solution like this work if my company has already invested thousands or maybe millions in a GRC solution? Do I still need it and how does it fit into an existing SAP environment? There could be interoperability, having more data sources, integrating Splunk, Qualys, FireEye, Rapid7, Carbon Black. I'm sure all that can be done to an extent, with a little more insight and a little more accuracy on the industry numbers and trends. I'd like the solution to offer any sort of assistance in any way with the remediation part, not just identification of vulnerability risk, and that is second.
Ajay Paul - PeerSpot reviewer
System Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Vulnerability management has prioritized high‑risk patching and simplified bulk system reporting
The primary issue is with the reporting functionality. Even though we fix vulnerabilities, the reports do not reflect the changes immediately. Sometimes we need to manually run a script to scan the systems before Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Management will update the scan results. The main issue is the reporting delay, and sometimes the Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Management agent will not scan the system, which means we do not receive accurate reports in a timely manner. Additionally, there are many metrics for calculating vulnerabilities, such as the Qualys ID, severity scores, CVSS scores, and other metrics. The abundance of information can be confusing. These two aspects are the most significant negatives I have experienced with this tool.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature; that is what it is used for and then data from different sources can be fed into it, and they have good dashboards, risk meters, and virtualization."
"The risk context of any vulnerability is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability scanning, policy compliance scanning, and tablet for web application scanning."
"The process of defining and discovering scans is organized efficiently."
"Technical support is fantastic."
"The solution is easy to use."
"This solution gives us insight into our environment and improves our security. It helps us to maintain a good patching system whereby we know that XYZ is vulnerable within the system."
"This solution has provided information about existing vulnerabilities, and helped with quick remediation in case of global malware attacks."
"Great web application security for scanning."
"Almost all of the features are great."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"I would like to see more accuracy in detections, better reporting capabilities, and better dashboard download capabilities."
"It is a struggle to be able to pull our report and to be able to do onboarding using automated tools."
"Endpoint stability and fault resolution could be improved."
"Finding things in management can be quite difficult."
"The technical support is mediocre at best. I would rate them a two out of five."
"I’m convinced it could be possible to do a simpler interface."
"The price could be better. Asset view is still a legacy feature. I'm not able to extract the information about the asset with complete details. It would be better if they fixed that in the next release. I know Qualys is already working on it, so I'm hopeful it will be available in the next five or six months. That would be something that's changed where I seek improvement."
"Certain integration factors between different options could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
"An annual license for a single scanner costs around $3,000."
"They have recently changed the pricing model, which is now better than it was before."
"The pricing is very competitive."
"It is more expensive than other products on the market."
"It's very expensive, especially if you want to use multiple modules of Qualys."
"Qualys VM is reasonably priced."
"There are no additional fees in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"The tool's pricing is expensive and I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business21
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise74
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys VMDR?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing shows that we can consider both time and money saved.
What needs improvement with Qualys VMDR?
I haven't explored Qualys VMDR's vulnerability lifecycle automation yet. One of my analysts mentioned that queries lack grouping operators in Qualys VMDR. From my experience, I would appreciate imp...
What advice do you have for others considering Qualys VMDR?
I have some understanding about PeerSpot, and I have visited the website. PeerSpot is similar to TrustRadius. It takes reviews from customers or end users who are using the tools and technologies i...
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
Qualys VM, QualysGuard VM, Qualys Asset Inventory, Qualys Container Security
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Agrokor Group, American Specialty Health, American State Bank, Arval, Life:), Axway, Bank of the West, Blueport Commerce, BSkyB, Brinks, CaixaBank, Cartagena, Catholic Health System, CEC Bank, Cegedim, CIGNA, Clickability, Colby-Sawyer College, Commercial Bank of Dubai, University of Utah, eBay Inc., ING Singapore, National Theatre, OTP Bank, Sodexo, WebEx
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Wiz, Horizon3.ai and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: September 2026.
914,938 professionals have used our research since 2012.