We performed a comparison between Aqua Security Platform and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Users appreciate Aqua Security Platform for its container image security, malware detection features, and ability to patch on-demand. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Users say Aqua Security Platform should improve its automated reporting and log forwarding, reduce resource usage, and overhaul its UI. 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: Aqua Security Platform users have praised its responsive and helpful customer service, but a few encountered situations where they had to resolve problems themselves. 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: Aqua Security Platform's initial setup can be complex and time-consuming, depending on the environment, and may necessitate specialized personnel for maintenance and updates. The setup process for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves multiple steps and total deployment can take days or weeks.
Pricing: Aqua Security Platform is priced competitively compared to some premium solutions and falls in the middle pricing tier. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Aqua Security Platform over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Users appreciate Aqua Security Platform for its straightforward setup process and features like vulnerability checking, malware detection, on-demand patching, and strong runtime security. They also mention that Aqua Security Platform offers flexible and scalable container security, supported by helpful customer service. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is criticized for its more complex setup process and higher resource requirements.
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"Our previous product took a lot of man hours to manage. Once we got Singularity Cloud Workload Security, it freed up our time to work on other tasks."
"We liked the search bar in PingSafe. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there."
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"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's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"Support is very helpful."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"The most helpful feature of Aqua Security is Drift Prevention, which is a feature that allows images to be immutable. In addition, one of the main reasons we went with Aqua Security is because it provides strong protection when it comes to runtime security."
"Aqua Security allowed us to gain visibility into the vulnerabilities that were present in the container images, that were being rolled out, the amount of risk that we were introducing to the platform, and provided us a look into the container environment by introducing access control mechanisms. In addition, when it came to runtime-level policies, we could restrict container access to resources in our environment, such as network-level or other application-level access."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"We use Aqua Security for the container security features."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"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."
"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."
"Segmentation is the most powerful 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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"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've found a lot of false positives."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"They could generally give us better comprehensive rules."
"We had a glitch in PingSafe where it fed us false positives in the past."
"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."
"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."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"In the next release, Aqua Security should add the ability to automatically send reports to customers."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"The integrations on CICD could be improved. If Aqua had more plugins or container images to integrate and automate more easily on CICD, it would be better."
"They want to release improvements to their product to work with other servers because now there are more focused on the Kubernetes environment. They need to improve the normal servers. I would like to have more options."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"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."
"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 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."
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 →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 7th in Container Security with 16 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". 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 ". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, SUSE NeuVector and Sysdig Secure, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Qualys VMDR and Sysdig Secure. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform 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.