Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) vs Tenable Security Center comparison

Cisco and Tenable are both solutions in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category. Cisco is ranked #19, while Tenable is ranked #4 with an average rating of 9.1. Cisco holds a 2.7% mindshare in RBVM, compared to Tenable’s 9.0% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Cisco users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 96% of Tenable users who would recommend it.

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...

Read 1 Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) review

1,035 Views
652 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Tenable Security Center

Read 56 Tenable Security Center reviews

7,708 Views
3,469 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

Cisco Vulnerability Managem...

Tenable Security Center

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management.

To learn more, read our detailed Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Risk-Based Vulnerability Management

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,757 peers since 2012

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

19th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cisco Security Portfolio (11th)

Tenable Security Center

Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management

4th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (12th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.7%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tenable Security Center is 9.0%, down from 17.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Tenable Security Center	9.0%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)	2.7%
Other	88.3%

Risk-Based Vulnerability Management

Featured Reviews

AshishPaliwal

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.

Read full review

OndrejKOVAC

Solution engineer at EXPERTience

Empower clients with risk-based vulnerability management through continuous workflow and valuable insights

Tenable Security Center could improve by implementing more dynamic data displays and translating reports into European languages. This is especially relevant in Central Eastern Europe, where clients often require reports in local languages. Additionally, the licensing model could be more flexible for managed security providers, similar to a pay-as-you-go model.

Read full review

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."

"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards."

"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."

"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are scanning, reporting, dashboards, and automation."

"The predictive prioritization features are pretty good. They do a lot of research and we trust the research that they do internally. They have knowledge of what's going on with many companies, where we only get a view into what's going on here. So the ability to get best practices out of them as part of this solution, is valuable to us."

"My advice for those considering Tenable Security Center is to note the benefit of upgrading vulnerable devices."

"I find Tenable SC to be a very scalable product."

"Tenable.sc is user-friendly."

"Overall, I rate the solution 9.8 out of 10."

More Tenable Security Center pros

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."

"Deploying Tenable.sc is highly complex because it's an on-prem solution, whereas Tenable.io is cloud-based, so you can go live as soon as you log in. Tenable.sc involves significant integration with other on-prem solutions, and the deployment takes about two to three weeks with the help of a system integrator"

"We are facing some challenges related to our channel."

"Security can always be improved."

"Its reporting can be improved. It is not easy to generate a scan report the way we want. The data is okay, but we can't easily change the template to make it look the way we want."

"The user interface can be improved."

"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."

"The GUI could be improved to have all concerns and priorities use the same GUI, allowing them to see all tickets, assign vulnerabilities, and assign variation failures to each member of their team."

"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."

More Tenable Security Center cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."

"The tool provides competitive pricing."

"I would rate the pricing a nine out of ten, where ten is expensive. It is the most expensive tool my company is using."

"I use a local license to perform penetration testing and I'm pretty happy with everything when it comes to pricing and licensing."

"My company needs to make yearly payments towards the licensing costs. The pricing of the solution falls in the mid-range level, so it is not too expensive"

"The pricing depends upon the number of IPs."

"The price can start at €10,000 ($13,000 USD) for between 500 and 1,000 assets, and the price can climb into the millions as more assets are added."

"For 500 users the licensing fee is roughly $100,000."

"We're able to save because we don't have to employ more staff members to help wit ht he scheduling of the scans, running the reports or sending them out to the systems owners. That alone is a big ROI for us."

More Tenable Security Center pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

18%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Retailer

14%

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	22
Midsize Enterprise	10
Large Enterprise	27

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What do you like most about Tenable SC?

The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Tenable SC?

The price of Tenable Security Center is not so high; it's relatively a cheaper solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Tenable SC?

We did conduct a long implementation which relates to what I think can be improved about Tenable Security Center. In some cases, we needed to refer back to Tenable itself, and in other cases, we ne...

See all answers

Comparisons

Vulcan Cyber vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)

Compared 15% of the time

Qualys VMDR vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)

Compared 12% of the time

Rapid7 InsightVM vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)

Compared 9% of the time

Unified Vulnerability Management vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)

Compared 9% of the time

Armis vs Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)

Compared 6% of the time

More Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) Competitors

Rapid7 InsightVM vs Tenable Security Center

Compared 11% of the time

Qualys VMDR vs Tenable Security Center

Compared 10% of the time

Tenable Nessus vs Tenable Security Center

Compared 8% of the time

Tenable Vulnerability Management vs Tenable Security Center

Compared 6% of the time

The NodeZero Platform by Horizon3.ai vs Tenable Security Center

Compared 4% of the time

More Tenable Security Center Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Risk-Based Vulnerability Management

February 2026

Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) report

Download Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) product report

Buyer's Guide

Tenable Security Center

January 2026

Download Tenable Security Center product report

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform

Tenable.sc, Tenable Unified Security, Tenable SecurityCenter

Overview

Cisco Vulnerability Management equips you with the contextual insight and threat intelligence needed to intercept the next exploit and respond with precision.

Prioritization is no longer a dark art—it's data science. Advanced algorithms, combined with rich internal and external intel, offer recommended fixes that will lower risk in as few moves as possible.

Track vulnerability fluctuations and forecast weaponization with up to 94% accuracy, giving you the chance to remediate high-risk vulnerabilities before bad actors can mount an attack.

With more than 19 threat intelligence feeds at your fingertips, you gain a comprehensive view of emerging threats, shifting trends, and your own risk profile.

A single source of data-verified truth aligns security and IT, eliminating friction and freeing up resources. And intuitive, simplified risk scores help you generate reports anyone can understand.

Cisco

Get a risk-based view of your IT, security and compliance posture so you can quickly identify, investigate and prioritize your most critical assets and vulnerabilities.

Managed on-premises and powered by Nessus technology, the Tenable Security Center (formerly Tenable.sc) suite of products provides the industry’s most comprehensive vulnerability coverage with real-time continuous assessment of your network. It’s your complete end-to-end vulnerability management solution.

Tenable

Sample Customers

TransUnion

IBM, Sempra Energy, Microsoft, Apple, Adidas, Union Pacific

Buyer's Guide

Risk-Based Vulnerability Management

February 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Tenable, Rapid7 and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Risk-Based 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.