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

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

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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)
Vulcan Cyber
Ranking in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management
9th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (28th), Cloud Security Remediation (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Risk-Based Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM) is 2.1%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Vulcan Cyber is 3.5%, up from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Vulcan Cyber3.5%
Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM)2.1%
Other94.4%
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.
Vikram Chakravarthy - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Engineer Ii (Vulnerability & Threat Management) at FICO
Risk-based workflows have transformed how our teams prioritize and track critical vulnerabilities
One important area for improvement could be reporting flexibility and dashboard customization, as this would need to align with specific organizational requirements. I believe it could be better. Additionally, UI simplification and more customization around workflows and reporting would further enhance the analyst experience. Improvements in executive reporting, more customizable dashboards, and deeper workflow flexibility would enhance operational usability further. Vulcan Cyber handles scalability well in our organization. It maintains stability for visibility and remediation tracking, avoiding the need for additional storage, as it is cloud-based. It scales well in our environment, even as vulnerability data and assets grow significantly.

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."
"It is very good when it comes to ingesting information from different sources and then displaying this information in an easy-to-use platform."
"Now that the solution is onboarded, we are saving a lot of time. We're saving roughly four to ten hours a week."
"There is a lot of flexibility in exporting, making it a really good feature. The exporting flexibility based on application type is commendable and provides significant value."
"I find the ability to consolidate information from multiple vulnerability scanners into a single source valuable."
"The automation capabilities using the Vulcan API platform or the API feature allow me to easily automate scripts and reports and schedule them."
"Vulcan Cyber offers a single pane of glass for centralizing our security data."
"It has allowed us to bring together multiple sources of information from different signal sources into a single point."
"They recently upgraded their UI, which is great. It is user-friendly."
 

Cons

"An improvement would be some sort of an integration with any GRC suite."
"It would be extremely helpful to have a community group around the product."
"The fact that we cannot use it for our reporting leads me to rate it three out of ten."
"Monitoring of the evolution of campaigns and perhaps having more customized options for monitoring them would be great."
"We've faced situations where we required support on a Friday, and support wasn't available."
"I would describe Vulcan Cyber's user interface as adequate, but there are gaps that need addressing."
"Their support is good, but there are some flaws as well. We often encounter some issues that are not applicable to Vulcan Cyber as a whole; they apply only to us because we have customized requirements. In such cases, when we reach out with specific data and issues to their support team, they sometimes come back and say that the issues have been resolved. However, when we test to see if they have been remediated, they are still there."
"An important area is performance and speed, as Vulcan Cyber often lacks speed when exporting reports."
"It was a rough year in terms of setup. I had to set it up and onboard it. It was a significant effort from my side at least."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I think the pricing is based on the number of endpoints, so it's more subscription-based."
"Our leadership knows better about the pricing. As per my knowledge, which might not be accurate, its price can come down."
"Its pricing is quite fair compared to what is out there in the market, especially compared to the tool from Microsoft. It is a SaaS platform that has an annual cost, so it is something that is already used by many companies. It is quite affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Risk-Based Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
17%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Vulcan Cyber?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Vulcan Cyber indicates that pricing typically depends on the scale of integrated assets. Organization values are usually evaluated based on...
What needs improvement with Vulcan Cyber?
One important area for improvement could be reporting flexibility and dashboard customization, as this would need to align with specific organizational requirements. I believe it could be better. A...
What is your primary use case for Vulcan Cyber?
My main use case for Vulcan Cyber involves vulnerability prioritization and tracking remediation, including exposure visibility and risk-based vulnerability management. We mainly use it to centrali...
 

Also Known As

Kenna.VM, Kenna Security, Kenna, Kenna Security Platform
No data available
 

Interactive Demo

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TransUnion
Stitch Fix, Mandiant, Wealthsimple, Entrust, Anaplan, Deloitte, Origami Risk, Verana Health
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys, Horizon3.ai, Tenable and others in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management. Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.