Heimdal Patch and Asset Management vs. Rapid7 InsightVM

Heimdal Patch and Asset Management is amazing at what it does - keeping all servers and endpoints patched and up to date. It removes the hassle out of manually checking software on each server and endpoint, and frees up the IT team's time to only have to interact with software that won't update automatically.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• All updates are delivered across all devices, whether domained or not.
• Ability to add applications to patching regime is excellent.
• Single pain of glass portal for all modules.
• If needed (rarely), support has been first class.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Interface could be more user friendly but when you know how it works its allright
• Easier way to quickly see what updates are installed on what machines

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

We assessed both ManageEngine and Qualys (specifically their patch management solution) against Heimdal Patch and Asset Management. Qualys was an outlier in terms of cost and felt complex for setup at the time (I believe this has now improved) when compared to both alternate solutions. When considering our patch solution we also wanted a product that could integrate additional features (Spam filtering, endpoint protection, remote desktop support) under "a pane of glass". Heimdal Patch and Asset Management seemed to cover this off within the best interface at a competitive price for each additional solution.

Incentivized

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.

Incentivized

• More Support necessary than without automated patching
• ROI is hard to determine as there was no 3rd party exploit in the time we have used Heimdal Patch and Asset Management

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized