We performed a comparison between Aqua Security Platform and SUSE NeuVector 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 appreciated for its container security and malware detection capabilities. SUSE NeuVector has been praised for its comprehensive feature set, informative dashboard, and impressive performance. Aqua Security Platform could improve its automated reporting and log forwarding while decreasing resource consumption and making integration more seamless. SUSE NeuVector could add support for IaaS and virtual machine scanning, enhance integration with other security tools in hybrid environments, and raise visibility into the DevSecOps pipeline.
Service and Support: Aqua Security Platform's customer service is generally considered prompt and supportive. However, a few users have mentioned having to resolve problems on their own. SUSE NeuVector's support is known for being knowledgeable and helpful, but some users find the process challenging to navigate.
Ease of Deployment: Aqua Security Platform users reported that the complexity, difficulty, and time needed to set up the platform can vary depending on the user's experience and environment. SUSE NeuVector's setup is considered to be moderately difficult.
Pricing: The cost of Aqua Security Platform falls within the average range. It's less expensive than some alternatives, but others noted that it isn't cheap. Some SUSE NeuVector users consider it inexpensive, but others say there is room for improvement.
ROI: Aqua Security Platform delivers value by offering accurate and up-to-date information. SUSE NeuVector is particularly advantageous for high-risk industries such as financial services.
Comparison Results: Aqua Security Platform outperforms SUSE NeuVector in several aspects. Users appreciate Aqua Security Platform for its ease of setup, extensive range of features, on-demand patching, and excellent customer service. SUSE NeuVector has been criticized for its complex setup process and reliance on custom scripts for integration. Users reported problems with inadequate documentation and limited integration options.
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"The multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"Atlas security graph is pretty cool. It maps out relationships between components on AWS, like load balancers and servers. This helps visualize potential attack paths and even suggests attack paths a malicious actor might take."
"Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"There's real-time threat detection. It can show threats and find issues based on their severity and helps us with real-time monitoring."
"PingSafe released a new security graph tool that helps us identify the root issue. Other tools give you a pass/fail type of profile on all misconfigurations, and those will run into the thousands. PingSafe's graphing algorithm connects various components together and tries to identify what is severe and what is not. It can correlate various vulnerabilities and datasets to test them on the back end to pinpoint the real issue."
"Support is very helpful."
"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 most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"We use Aqua Security for the container security features."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"The solution was very user-friendly."
"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 most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"There's an array of upcoming versions with numerous features to be incorporated into the roadmap. Customers particularly appreciate the service's emphasis on intensive security, especially the secret scanning aspect. During the proof of concept (POC) phase, the system is required to gather logs from the customer's environment. This process entails obtaining specific permissions, especially in terms of gateway access. While most permissions for POC are manageable, the need for various permissions may need improvement, especially in the context of security."
"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."
"Currently, we would have to export our vulnerability report to an .xlsx file, and review it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then we sort of compile a list from there. It would be cool if there was a way to actually toggle multiple applications for review and then see those file paths on multiple users rather than only one user at a time or only one application at a time."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"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."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"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."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"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."
"Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"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."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 7th in Container Security with 16 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 20th in Container Security with 7 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. 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 SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Sysdig Secure, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Sysdig Secure and Snyk. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.