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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 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
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cisco Security Portfolio (11th)
Unified Vulnerability Manag...
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
18th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.1%, down from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Unified Vulnerability Management is 2.4%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Unified Vulnerability Management2.4%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)2.1%
Other95.5%
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.
SA
Director, Technology at AmericaTech, Inc.
Unified vulnerability management has strengthened credential defenses and improves risk-based decisions
I believe Unified Vulnerability Management can improve by emphasizing continuous monitoring, which necessitates a dashboard for users. Creating more mobility, especially since many incidents occur outside regular hours, would be beneficial. If anything goes wrong, a mobile version or mobile dashboard could be extremely helpful. Mobility is now a mandatory capability, allowing users to manage vulnerabilities through mobile applications. Beyond mobility for Unified Vulnerability Management, more flexibility is also required. For example, vulnerability scanners routinely scan and create reports. It would be beneficial if I could create a runbook so that if any unwanted events occur, it generates alerts and stops operations. This would create a complete package for secure posture and management, allowing me to protect not just through scans but also through prevention.

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 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."
"Unified Vulnerability Management has positively impacted my organization by improving our response time to vulnerabilities significantly, reducing our average response time by 40% and delivering measurable improvements in our security posture."
"Unified Vulnerability Management has centralized the process of identifying, assessing, prioritizing, remediating, and monitoring vulnerabilities across my organization's entire IT ecosystem through a single integrated platform and governance framework, making this the most significant advantage."
"The best feature of Unified Vulnerability Management is that it never shows actual details publicly and provides different virtual information to those coming from outside the company."
"In Unified Vulnerability Management, the best features include the ability to consolidate each and every device without dependency on other patch vulnerability management software, such as Qualys and SolarWinds, which have limited modules."
"For me, the most appealing aspect of Unified Vulnerability Management for a customer or potential customer is the functionality."
"Based on my experience, the visibility and zero trust that Unified Vulnerability Management provides brings the biggest benefit."
"Unified Vulnerability Management gives a good overview and detailed visibility of all traffic, which allows me to easily find bottlenecks or issues."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"I cannot rate Unified Vulnerability Management in general from one to ten because I have not implemented the product."
"The negative side of Unified Vulnerability Management is that you need a skill set that is not readily available."
"I believe Unified Vulnerability Management can be improved by refining its reporting capabilities."
"In Unified Vulnerability Management, the area that needs improvement is DNS-level security, which has been lacking for the last ten years."
"More AI features would be welcome, and the price should be lower because it is becoming more expensive, and customers are already looking for alternatives because of the pricing."
"Customer support varies. After COVID, I find customer support lacking, and I am not sure why the principals do not prioritize it more."
"Improvements are necessary because Unified Vulnerability Management has been in the market for only seven or eight years, and a lot of improvement must be required for performance."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
909,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
15%
Computer Software Company
12%
Construction Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Unified Vulnerability Management?
I purchased Unified Vulnerability Management directly from Zscaler, not from AWS Marketplace.
What needs improvement with Unified Vulnerability Management?
I cannot answer what could be improved about Unified Vulnerability Management because I have not implemented it. I am not in a position to give feedback. I cannot comment on what other features or ...
What is your primary use case for Unified Vulnerability Management?
We integrated Unified Vulnerability Management with the FortiGate firewall, and as of now, there are no challenges found. It is very easy to implement Unified Vulnerability Management with the Fort...
 

Also Known As

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

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Horizon3.ai, Tenable and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: August 2026.
909,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.