We performed a comparison of Qualys VMDR and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Qualys VMDR is praised for its user-friendly interface, prioritization system, and customizable dashboard. It effectively addresses vulnerabilities and offers valuable scanning capabilities. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Reviewers said Qualys VMDR could improve by offering more customization options and integrating more seamlessly with other systems. 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.
Service and Support: Qualys VMDR's customer service is mostly considered accessible and responsive. However, some reviewers reported slow response times and expressed a desire for more skilled support personnel. Customers using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes gave feedback and regard the support they receive as being of high quality.
Ease of Deployment: The Qualys VMDR setup is considered uncomplicated and efficient, requiring only a short amount of time. A few users encountered challenges with integration and ensuring data privacy. The setup process for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves multiple steps, and total deployment can take days or weeks.
Pricing: The cost of Qualys VMDR varies depending on the organization's business requirements. Some find it affordable, but others consider it costly compared to alternatives. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
ROI: Qualys VMDR offers users a solid ROI by efficiently identifying vulnerabilities and effectively reducing risks. Our users have given no feedback on the ROI of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes so far.
Comparison Results: Qualys VMDR is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Qualys is highly regarded for its intuitive interface and extensive vulnerability tracking. Users appreciate its continuous monitoring and asset-tagging capabilities. Some users say Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes lacks certain features compared to its competitors. There is room for improvement in deployment, testing, documentation, and stability.
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"It is scalable, stable, and can detect any threat on a machine. It uses artificial intelligence and can lock down any virus."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"The management console is the most valuable feature."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"I am impressed with the VMDR feature."
"They also have threat detection which maps threats. There is a feed that comes from Qualys when a new vulnerability is found. It tells us which machines are infected with that vulnerability."
"Qualys VM has allowed us to know the vulnerabilities we need to prioritize based on the threat levels and the possible impact if there's an intrusion."
"Tech support is helpful."
"Qualys has a continuous endpoint monitoring feature for agent-based scanning. Once you deploy the solution, it monitors everything that is happening every 30 minutes. Then, if there are any vulnerabilities, they are reported."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is automation."
"There are fewer false positives when using this solution."
"The technical support is good."
"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."
"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 is the ability to share resources."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"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."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"There is room for improvement in the current active licensing model for PingSafe."
"Some of the navigation and some aspects of the portal may be a little bit confusing."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"Currently, we would have to export our vulnerability report to an .xlsx file, and review it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then we sort of compile a list from there. It would be cool if there was a way to actually toggle multiple applications for review and then see those file paths on multiple users rather than only one user at a time or only one application at a time."
"Improve the user interface."
"Improve the API speed."
"Sometimes the scanning can get overwhelmed and start to drag when a lot of users are trying to scan at once."
"Qualys VM's scanner doesn't pick up every vulnerability, so we have to use multiple scanners to cover that gap."
"The reporting in this solution can be improved."
"The tool needs to improve the adding assets and report generation features. I would like to see the policy scan of offline appliances in the product's future releases."
"It's quite complex on the way it is set up, so it takes a fair bit of time in order to get your head around it in order to deploy it. Once you've deployed it, then you're never confident on the versions of the browsers and the SSL certificates, etc. You have to always go back into Qualys and check."
"Certain integration factors between different options could be improved."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"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 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 testing process could be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
"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'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 Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Qualys VMDR is ranked 11th in Container Security with 77 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". 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 ". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management, 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 Sysdig Secure. See our Qualys VMDR 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.
