We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is highly regarded for its exceptional resource-sharing and segmentation capabilities. Snyk earns praise for its developer-friendly approach and range of scanning features. Snyk also stands out for its software composition analysis and compatibility with containers. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security reviewers stressed a need for better documentation. They would also like the solution to incorporate features like zero trust and access control. Users said Snyk should work on improving compatibility and enhancing their vulnerability database.
Service and Support: Red Hat has been praised for its efficient and effective technical support. Some Snyk customers said support could better organize and prioritize requests.
Ease of Deployment: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires users to create various customer resource files and deploy an image as a container, which is a time-consuming process that can take days or weeks to configure. Snyk's setup is simple and uncomplicated, with users reporting positive experiences and excellent support from the vendor team.
Pricing: Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced, and Red Hat offers affordable bundled pricing options. Snyk is considered expensive relative to other solutions. Users say it is better suited for larger companies or enterprises that can afford it.
ROI: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes provides extensive security features, while Snyk emphasizes cost-effective vulnerability identification.
Comparison Results: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is preferred over Snyk. Users appreciate its comprehensive setup process, scalability, and ability to run multiple containers. It also offers a hybrid cloud approach and seamless integration with other solutions. Some users encountered difficulties integrating Snyk with existing tools.
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"The remediation process is good."
"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."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"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 technical support is good."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"I find SCA to be valuable. It can read your libraries, your license and bring the best way to resolve your problem in the best scenario."
"Snyk performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools."
"The product's most valuable features are an open-source platform, remote functionality, and good pricing."
"It has a nice dashboard where I can see all the vulnerabilities and risks that they provided. I can also see the category of any risk, such as medium, high, and low. They provide the input priority-wise. The team can target the highest one first, and then they can go to medium and low ones."
"A main feature of Snyk is that when you go with SCA, you do get properly done security composition, also from the licensing and open-source parameters perspective. A lot of companies often use open-source libraries or frameworks in their code, which is a big security concern. Snyk deals with all the things and provides you with a proper report about whether any open-source code or framework that you are using is vulnerable. In that way, Snyk is very good as compared to other tools."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the software composition analysis."
"Our customers find container scans most valuable. They are always talking about it."
"It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now."
"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."
"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
"The reporting works well, but sometimes the severity classifications are inaccurate. Sometimes, it flags an issue as high-impact, but it should be a lower severity."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"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."
"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"There is always more work to do around managing the volume of information when you've got thousands of vulnerabilities. Trying to get those down to zero is virtually impossible, either through ignoring them all or through fixing them. That filtering or information management is always going to be something that can be improved."
"All such tools should definitely improve the signatures in their database. Snyk is pretty new to the industry. They have a pretty good knowledge base, but Veracode is on top because Veracode has been in this business for a pretty long time. They do have a pretty large database of all the findings, and the way that the correlation engine works is superb. Snyk is also pretty good, but it is not as good as Veracode in terms of maintaining a large space of all the historical data of vulnerabilities."
"The way Snyk notifies if we have an issue, there are a few options: High vulnerability or medium vulnerability. The problem with that is high vulnerabilities are too broad, because there are too many. If you enable notifications, you get a lot of notifications, When you get many notifications, they become irrelevant because they're not specific. I would prefer to have control over the notifications and somehow decide if I want to get only exploitable vulnerabilities or get a specific score for a vulnerability. Right now, we receive too many high vulnerabilities. If we enable notifications, then we just get a lot of spam message. Therefore, we would like some type of filtering system to be built-in for the system to be more precise."
"A feature we would like to see is the ability to archive and store historical data, without actually deleting it. It's a problem because it throws my numbers off. When I'm looking at the dashboard's current vulnerabilities, it's not accurate."
"The tool's initial use is complex."
"The product is very expensive."
"One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs."
"It can be improved from the reporting perspective and scanning perspective. They can also improve it on the UI front."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Snyk is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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 Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Snyk report.
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.
