We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Snyk 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 is highly regarded for its exceptional resource-sharing and segmentation capabilities. Snyk earns praise for its developer-friendly approach and range of scanning features. Snyk also stands out for its software composition analysis and compatibility with containers. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security reviewers stressed a need for better documentation. They would also like the solution to incorporate features like zero trust and access control. Users said Snyk should work on improving compatibility and enhancing their vulnerability database.
Service and Support: Red Hat has been praised for its efficient and effective technical support. Some Snyk customers said support could better organize and prioritize requests.
Ease of Deployment: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires users to create various customer resource files and deploy an image as a container, which is a time-consuming process that can take days or weeks to configure. Snyk's setup is simple and uncomplicated, with users reporting positive experiences and excellent support from the vendor team.
Pricing: Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced, and Red Hat offers affordable bundled pricing options. Snyk is considered expensive relative to other solutions. Users say it is better suited for larger companies or enterprises that can afford it.
ROI: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes provides extensive security features, while Snyk emphasizes cost-effective vulnerability identification.
Comparison Results: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is preferred over Snyk. Users appreciate its comprehensive setup process, scalability, and ability to run multiple containers. It also offers a hybrid cloud approach and seamless integration with other solutions. Some users encountered difficulties integrating Snyk with existing tools.
"Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"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 visibility is the best part of the solution."
"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 most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"The technical support is good."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue."
"Static code analysis is one of the best features of the solution."
"It is one of the best product out there to help developers find and fix vulnerabilities quickly. When we talk about the third-party software vulnerability piece and potentially security issues, it takes the load off the user or developer. They even provide automitigation strategies and an auto-fix feature, which seem to have been adopted pretty well."
"The most effective feature in securing project dependencies stems from its ability to highlight security vulnerabilities."
"It has improved our vulnerability rating and reduced our vulnerabilities through the tool during the time that we've had it. It's definitely made us more aware, as we have removed scoping for existing vulnerabilities and platforms since we rolled it out up until now."
"Snyk is a good and scalable tool."
"I find SCA to be valuable. It can read your libraries, your license and bring the best way to resolve your problem in the best scenario."
"It has a nice dashboard where I can see all the vulnerabilities and risks that they provided. I can also see the category of any risk, such as medium, high, and low. They provide the input priority-wise. The team can target the highest one first, and then they can go to medium and low ones."
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"We are getting reports only in a predefined form. I would like to have customized reports so that I can see how many issues are open or closed today or in two weeks."
"We'd like to have better notifications. We'd like them to happen faster."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"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."
"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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"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 documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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 price could be better."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The tool's initial use is complex."
"The tool should provide more flexibility and guidance to help us fix the top vulnerabilities before we go into production."
"I think Snyk should add more of a vulnerability protection feature in the tool since it is an area where it lacks."
"There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform."
"One area where Snyk could improve is in providing developers with the line where the error occurs."
"They were a couple of issues which happened because Snyk lacked some documentation on the integration side. Snyk is lacking a lot of documentation, and I would like to see them improve this. This is where we struggle a bit. For example, if something breaks, we can't figure out how to fix that issue. It may be a very simple thing, but because we don't have the proper documentation around an issue, it takes us a bit longer."
"Offering API access in the lower or free open-source tiers would be better. That would help our customers. If you don't have an enterprise plan, it becomes challenging to integrate with the rest of the systems. Our customers would like to have some open-source integrations in the next release."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
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 Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Snyk is rated 8.2. 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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 Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Snyk 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.