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.
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"The solution is a good alerting tool."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"The technical support is good."
"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 of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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."
"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."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"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."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"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."
"They need more experienced support personnel."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"I want PingSafe to integrate additional third-party resources. For example, PingSafe is compatible with Azure and AWS, but Azure AD isn't integrated with AWS. If PingSafe had that ability, it would enrich the data because how users interact with our AWS environment is crucial. All the identity-related features require improvement."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"I would like PingSafe's detections to be openly available online instead of only accessible through their portal. Other tools have detections that are openly available without going through the tool."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"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."
"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."
"The support is tricky to reach, so we would like better-oriented technical support enabled."
"Tenable.io Container Security should improve integration modules. It should also improve stability."
"The initial setup is highly complex."
"The stability and setup phase of the product are areas with shortcomings where improvements are needed."
"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."
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.