We performed a comparison between CoreOS Clair and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"It is very straightforward. It is not complicated. For the information that it provides, it does a pretty good job."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"CoreOS Clair's best feature is detection accuracy."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The benefit of working with the solution is the fact that it's very straightforward...It is a perfectly stable product since the details are very accurate."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The technical support is good."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"They could generally give us better comprehensive rules."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"I want PingSafe to integrate additional third-party resources. For example, PingSafe is compatible with Azure and AWS, but Azure AD isn't integrated with AWS. If PingSafe had that ability, it would enrich the data because how users interact with our AWS environment is crucial. All the identity-related features require improvement."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"An area for improvement is that CoreOS Clair doesn't provide information about the location of vulnerabilities it detects."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity."
"They're trying to convert it to the platform as a source. They are moving in the direction of Cloud Foundry so it can be easier for a developer to deploy it."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The testing process could be improved."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
CoreOS Clair is ranked 26th in Container Security with 1 review while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews. CoreOS Clair is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CoreOS Clair writes "Excellent detection accuracy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". CoreOS Clair is most compared with JFrog Xray, Snyk, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform and Qualys VMDR, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Kubescape.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
