We performed a comparison between Aqua Security Platform and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Aqua Security Platform is highly appreciated for its ability to secure container images, identify vulnerabilities, and detect malware. Snyk is acclaimed for being developer-friendly, offering automatic pull request creation and software composition analysis. Aqua Security Platform could improve by automating reporting and log forwarding. Users also complain that it is too resource-heavy. Snyk could focus on improving compatibility and reporting capabilities. Reviewers said that Snyk could automate remediation and simplify functions.
Service and Support: Aqua Security Platform's customer service is generally considered prompt and supportive, but some users reported that they had to fix some issues themselves. Some users said Snyk's customer service should improve the way it organizes and prioritizes support tickets.
Ease of Deployment: Users reported varying levels of difficulty with Aqua's setup process, with some saying the solution required specialized knowledge. Snyk's setup was generally considered straightforward, with some variations depending on specific circumstances.
Pricing: Aqua Security Platform is moderately priced. Snyk is considered expensive, particularly for smaller companies. However, some users said the pricing was manageable for larger enterprises.
ROI: Snyk offers a budget-friendly solution that has the potential to offset annual subscription costs by addressing bugs faster. Users offered limited feedback on the ROI for Aqua Security Platform.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Snyk over Aqua Security Platform. Users appreciate Snyk's straightforward setup and developer-friendly approach. Snyk offers valuable features like scanning, automatic pull requests, and software composition analysis.
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"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 real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"The solution is a good alerting tool."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"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."
"Their sandboxing service is also really good."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"Valuable features include the ability to connect it to our Docker Hub where our images are stored, good integration with Slack, and the connection to the CV, to easily see which CVs are on each image."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"A main feature of Snyk is that when you go with SCA, you do get properly done security composition, also from the licensing and open-source parameters perspective. A lot of companies often use open-source libraries or frameworks in their code, which is a big security concern. Snyk deals with all the things and provides you with a proper report about whether any open-source code or framework that you are using is vulnerable. In that way, Snyk is very good as compared to other tools."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"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 valuable features are their GitLab and JIRA integrations. The GitLab integration lets us pull projects in pretty easily, so that it's pretty minimal for developers to get it set up. Using the JIRA integration, it's also pretty easy to get the information that is generated, as a result of that GitLab integration, back to our teams in a non-intrusive way and in a workflow that we are already using."
"It is easy for developers to use. The documentation is clear as well as the APIs are good and easily readable. It's a good solution overall."
"The solution's vulnerability database, in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy, is very high-level. As far as I know, it's the best among their competitors."
"Snyk categorizes the level of vulnerability into high, medium, and low, which helps organizations prioritize which issues to tackle first."
"The solution's Open Source feature gives us notifications and suggestions regarding how to address vulnerabilities."
"We'd like to have better notifications. We'd like them to happen faster."
"We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"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."
"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"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."
"Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"Sometimes I got stressed with the UI."
"Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public."
"There's room for improvement, particularly in management capabilities as it may not be comprehensive enough for all customers, and it has been lacking in the realm of cloud security posture management."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"We would like to have upfront knowledge on how easy it should be to just pull in an upgraded dependency, e.g., even introduce full automation for dependencies supposed to have no impact on the business side of things. Therefore, we would like some output when you get the report with the dependencies. We want to get additional information on the expected impact of the business code that is using the dependency with the newer version. This probably won't be easy to add, but it would be helpful."
"We have seen cases where tools didn't find or recognize certain dependencies. These are known issues, to some extent, due to the complexity in the language or stack that you using. There are some certain circumstances where the tool isn't actually finding what it's supposed to be finding, then it could be misleading."
"Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better."
"The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk."
"The solution's integration with JFrog Artifactory could be improved."
"The way Snyk notifies if we have an issue, there are a few options: High vulnerability or medium vulnerability. The problem with that is high vulnerabilities are too broad, because there are too many. If you enable notifications, you get a lot of notifications, When you get many notifications, they become irrelevant because they're not specific. I would prefer to have control over the notifications and somehow decide if I want to get only exploitable vulnerabilities or get a specific score for a vulnerability. Right now, we receive too many high vulnerabilities. If we enable notifications, then we just get a lot of spam message. Therefore, we would like some type of filtering system to be built-in for the system to be more precise."
"They need to improve the Snyk plugins and make it easier to make your optimizations based on your own needs or features."
"There is always more work to do around managing the volume of information when you've got thousands of vulnerabilities. Trying to get those down to zero is virtually impossible, either through ignoring them all or through fixing them. That filtering or information management is always going to be something that can be improved."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 7th in Container Security with 16 reviews while Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Snyk is rated 8.2. 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, SUSE NeuVector and Sysdig Secure, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Coverity. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors and best DevSecOps 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.
