We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and SUSE NeuVector 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 receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. SUSE NeuVector is praised for its wide range of features, informative user interface, ISO certification checks, and automation capabilities. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes could improve by enhancing testing capabilities, making command line and configuration processes easier, and incorporating zero trust and access control measures. SUSE NeuVector needs to expand scanning support and work on monitoring, reporting, and integration.
Service and Support: Customers using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes gave feedback and regard the support they receive as being of high quality. SUSE NeuVector's support is praised for being supportive, prompt, and well-informed, although a few reviewers consider the process to be complex.
Ease of Deployment: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions. Some reviewers think setting up SUSE NeuVector is straightforward, while others find it complex and challenging. Integrating SUSE NeuVector with pipelines is particularly difficult, often requiring the use of custom scripts.
Pricing: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions. The pricing and licensing experiences of SUSE NeuVector users vary, with some considering it affordable and others indicating a need for improvement.
ROI: Our users have given no feedback on the ROI of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes so far. SUSE NeuVector provides the largest ROI for high-risk sectors such as financial services, although its benefits may be limited for some sectors, such as retail.
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"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."
"The offensive security feature is valuable because it publicly detects the offensive and vulnerable things present in our domain or applications. It checks any applications with public access. Some of the applications give public access to certain files or are present over a particular domain. It detects and lets us know with evidence. That is quite good. It is protecting our infrastructure quite well."
"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."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"PingSafe offers an intuitive user interface that lets us navigate quickly and easily."
"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."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"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."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"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 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."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"The Infrastructure as Code service available in PingSafe and the services available in AWS cloud security can be merged so that we can get the security data directly from AWS cloud in PingSafe. This way, all the data related to security will be in one single place. Currently, we have to check a couple of things on PingSafe, and we have to validate that same data on the AWS Cloud to be sure. If they can collaborate like that, it will be great."
"While PingSafe offers real-time response, there is room for improvement in alert accuracy."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"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 solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
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 SUSE NeuVector is ranked 20th in Container Security with 7 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. 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 SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Qualys VMDR and Sysdig Secure, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Sysdig Secure and Snyk. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. SUSE NeuVector 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.