We performed a comparison between Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.io Container Security excels at analyzing vulnerabilities and identifying misconfiguration. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Tenable.io could improve by automating remediation and CIS benchmarks while enhancing asset visibility and implementing customizable compliance options. 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: Some users encountered technical issues when contacting Tenable.io support. 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: Tenable.io Container Security comes with clear setup documentation, making the deployment process smooth. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires considerable time and effort to deploy due to its complex configuration process.
Pricing: Tenable.io Container Security's setup cost is determined by the application's page count. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
Comparison Results: Tenable.io Container Security is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Tenable.io Container Security offers a smooth setup process with helpful guidebooks, quick deployment, and the ability to identify misconfigurations before going live. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes has a more complicated setup process, requires more resources for deployment, and lacks certain features offered by other solutions.
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"PingSafe offers an intuitive user interface that lets us navigate quickly and easily."
"The management console is the most valuable feature."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its storyline, which helps trace an event back to its source, like an email or someone clicking on a link."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"Currently, I haven't implemented the solution due to its deprecation by the site. However, I can highlight some benefits of Tenable Cloud Security, a cybersecurity solution with various features for scanning vulnerabilities in both cloud environments and on-premises container security."
"Tenable.io detects misconfiguration when you deploy a Docker or Kubernetes container. It's much better to remedy these issues during deployment instead of waiting until the container is already in the production environment."
"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."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"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."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"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."
"Maybe container runtime security could be improved."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"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."
"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 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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The stability and setup phase of the product are areas with shortcomings where improvements are needed."
"The support is tricky to reach, so we would like better-oriented technical support enabled."
"The initial setup is highly complex."
"I believe integration plays a crucial role for Tenable, particularly in terms of connecting with other products and various container solutions like Docker or Kubernetes. It seems that in future updates, enhanced integration is something I would appreciate. Currently, there is integration with Docker, but when it comes to Kubernetes or other container solutions, it appears to be a challenge, especially with on-prem scanners."
"They need to work on auto-remediation so it's easier for the security team to act quickly when certain assets or resources are deployed. The latest version has a CIS benchmark that you need to meet for containers in the cloud, but more automation is needed."
"I feel that in certain areas this product has false positives which the company should work on. They should also try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing. Finally, the vulnerability assessment feature should be increased to other hardware devices, apart from firewalls."
"Tenable.io Container Security should improve integration modules. It should also improve stability."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Container Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Tenable.io Container Security is ranked 21st in Container Security with 7 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Tenable.io Container Security 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 Tenable.io Container Security writes "It helps you catch misconfigurations before they go into a production environment where they're harder to deal with". 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 CoreOS Clair, whereas Tenable.io Container Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Wiz, Trivy and SUSE NeuVector. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Tenable.io Container Security 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.