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 most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"There's real-time threat detection. It can show threats and find issues based on their severity and helps us with real-time monitoring."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"The visibility is the best part of the solution."
"Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the diagnostic service."
"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."
"We find the container orchestration tool that this solution provides to be very valuable."
"Compliance is easy right out-of-the-box with integration to Azure Security, Azure Active Directory, and Azure Policies."
"The most valuable features of AKS are the full array of capabilities and robust security."
"It employs high availability."
"The setup was straightforward and it took one hour to deploy."
"AKS is easy to use. We can scale up and down as needed with AKS, which saves us money on our cloud costs."
"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."
"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."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The technical support is good."
"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 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."
"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."
"Some of the navigation and some aspects of the portal may be a little bit confusing."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"The solution should improve its UI and cost."
"I would like to see Azure implement something like the K9 terminal for interacting with Kubernetes clusters. It's a user-friendly CLI interface."
"AKS has the potential to enhance pricing by enabling us to explore ways to increase cost transparency. However, it's important to note that this refers to computation costs rather than client costs. Our objective is to optimize efficiency and minimize unnecessary expenses. Therefore, we aim to identify which services within the platform can benefit from improved consumption patterns. This is the focus of our ongoing research, with the goal of maximizing computational power within the cluster. We aim to avoid situations where resources are reserved but not utilized effectively. Additionally, our strong emphasis on security ensures that we adhere to all relevant compliance standards, bolstering our overall trustworthiness."
"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."
"In terms of cost perspective, they could make the product more affordable."
"I would like to see a graphical user interface."
"Its integration functions could be enhanced."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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 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 solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
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 16th 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.
