We performed a comparison between Bridgecrew and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)."Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"The ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"New users don't have too many problems with the product. They have a lot of training documentation around it."
"In cases where they have automatic remediations, you can click a button and it'll just fix the configuration for you."
"Tenable's most valuable features are the credential scan, vulnerability reports, and vulnerability ratings (VPR)."
"This solution has a much lower rate of false positives compared to competing products."
"Feature-wise, Tenable Security Center is a very fast tool with many dashboards and reports, and it covers all our systems."
"Tenable is the leading product for vulnerability scanning."
"The tool provides us insight into the happens of the network and its hosts. It provides me with a list of hosts."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are the reports and the dashboards."
"Tenable also helps us to focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. And since it is continuously updated, it allows us to reevaluate quickly if there are new vulnerabilities found..."
"One of the most valuable features is their distributed scan model for allotting engines to work together as a pool and handle multiple scans at once, across multiple environments. Automatic scanning distribution is a distinguishing feature of their toolset."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"One of our use cases was setting up a firewall for our endpoints, specifically for our remote users... We were hoping to utilize SentinelOne's firewall capabilities, but there were limitations on how many URLs we could implement. Because of those limitations on the number of URLs, we weren't able to utilize that feature in the way we had hoped to."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"In addition to the console alerts, I would like PingSafe to also send email notifications."
"The resolution suggestions could be better, and the compliance features could be more customizable for Indian regulations. Overall, the compliance aspects are good. It gives us a comprehensive list, and its feedback is enough to bring us into compliance with regulations, but it doesn't give us the specific objects."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"The biggest issue that I see companies run into is that they immediately think that, "Oh, this solution will be right, simply due to the name." But that's the same issue Splunk runs into. People will immediately jump to Splunk being the best SIEM tool, just because they're the largest. When in reality, QRadar, LogRhythm, and all these other ones are performing similar functions and would actually fit better in some people's environments. Therefore, it's important a company does its homework and does not assume one size fits all."
"We'd like to see better monitoring and the ability to deny certain resources from being scanned."
"The integration is very good, although it still needs to improve."
"The solution is expensive."
"In terms of configuration, there is some level of flexibility that we are not able to achieve."
"Tenable SC can improve by adding more integrations with HCI-type tools and more accurate vulnerability detection."
"Tenable.sc's user interface could be improved."
"Support could be faster."
"The solution should include compliance-based scanning."
"There's a lot of information being streamed out of the reports. What would be nice, and maybe we just haven't found it, would be more of an executive-type view. We still expect it to collect all this information, but we would like a feature that would allow us to show it to an executive or a director or someone like that and give them some type of high-level overview but not get into the nitty-gritty."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Bridgecrew is ranked 21st in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 2 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Bridgecrew is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bridgecrew writes "Multi-cloud, good scanning, and offers extensive guides". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Bridgecrew is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Horizon3.ai.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
