We performed a comparison between Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution's most valuable features are its ability to detect vulnerabilities inside AWS resources and its ability to rescan after a specific duration set by the administrator."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to navigate."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The product serves the purpose of helping streamline our company's application deployment and scaling processes."
"We find the container orchestration tool that this solution provides to be very valuable."
"The platform's high scalability is one of its biggest advantages."
"Integration and automation are the best features of the solution."
"The setup was straightforward and it took one hour to deploy."
"It is easy to deploy."
"AKS as a service is very good when you need to leverage applications or functions with much variability in their usage because you're trying to be as efficient as you can with resources."
"It employs high availability."
"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."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"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 →
"When we get a new finding from PingSafe, I wish we could get an alert in the console, so we can work on it before we see it in the report. It would be very useful for the team that is actively working on the PingSafe platform, so we can close the issue the same day before it appears in the daily report."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"I export CSV. I cannot export graphs. Restricting it to the CSV format has its own disadvantages. These are all machine IP addresses and information. I cannot change it to the JSON format. The export functionality can be improved."
"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."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"The application firewall is lacking some features and there is room for enhancement."
"Configuration management and troubleshooting performance issues are difficult to solve and could be made easier."
"Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is not up to optimal standards when it comes to capturing logs and visualization."
"The initial setup is complex."
"We would like to see the addition of a service report from the server for this solution, so that we can monitor the health of server operations."
"The initial setup of AKS is complicated. The setup depends on the cluster, nodes, and lots of other things. There are also lots of extremely critical small devices. Moreover, you will have to pay them even while setting up the solution. It is not like you setup first and then pay for it."
"The product’s cost could be reduced."
"In terms of cost perspective, they could make the product more affordable."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"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 solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"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."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is ranked 13th in Container Security with 32 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) writes "Decreases administrative burdens and costs, has good diagnostic tools, and is easy to deploy". 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 ". Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) is most compared with Red Hat OpenShift, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, SUSE Rancher 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 Symantec Data Center Security. See our Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes 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.
