We performed a comparison between Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is highly regarded for its extensive visibility and management features, including Cloud Security Posture Management and container security. On the other hand, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives acclaim for its excellent resource-sharing and segmentation capabilities. Prisma Cloud could be more customizable and integrate with ticketing solutions better. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires enhancements in testing, documentation, usability, and stability.
Service and Support: Some Prisma Cloud customers have called Palo Alto support exceptional and prompt, while others have reported sluggish response times. Customers have generally provided positive remarks about the customer service offered by Red Hat, deeming it to be of high quality.
Ease of Deployment: Some Prisma Cloud users found the setup process to be simple, but others said it was somewhat complicated. The deployment time varies depending on the customer environment. The setup for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves creating multiple customer resource files and deploying the desired image as a container. The setup is considered moderately easy and the deployment time varies based on the customer's needs, with financial institutions typically taking longer.
Pricing: Users have differing opinions on the setup cost of Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, but many find it to be reasonable and competitive. On the other hand, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and offers subscription-based options along with a bundled price.
ROI: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks has proven to be highly effective at preventing breaches, enhancing risk visibility, streamlining operations, and mitigating cyberattack threats. Users have provided limited feedback regarding the ROI of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.
Comparison Results: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Prisma Cloud offers comprehensive visibility and management options through a user-friendly web GUI. Users appreciate its anomaly detection abilities, seamless integration with other tools, and the ability to provide security across multi- and hybrid-cloud environments. Compared to Prisma Cloud, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes falls short in terms of usability, documentation, and stability.
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"It saves time, makes your environment more secure, and improves compliance. PingSafe helps with audits, ensuring that you are following best practices for cloud security. You don't need to be an expert to use it and improve your security."
"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 management console is the most valuable feature."
"When creating cloud infrastructure, Cloud Native Security evaluates the cloud security parameters and how they will impact the organization's risk. It lets us know whether our security parameter conforms to international industry standards. It alerts us about anything that increases our risk, so we can address those vulnerabilities and prevent attacks."
"The cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"The client wasn't using all of the features, but the one that stood out was infrastructure-as-code (IaC). I built IaC use cases and was trying to get them to use it. I also liked cloud workload protection. I worked with the vulnerability management team to develop a process. It's a manual process, so it can be challenging to remediate many image or container issues. It was nice that we could build out a reporting process and download the reports. The reports are solid."
"I find the CSPM area to be a more valuable and flexible feature."
"The support is excellent."
"Integration is very easy. And because it supports security that spans multi- and hybrid-cloud environments, it's very easy to use."
"The most valuable features are the alerts and auto-remediation because it allows us a lot of flexibility to customize and do things the Palo Alto team never intended. We faced some challenges with certificates because we also have next-gen firewalls. We would like to equip all the traffic because there have been many cases in which the developers have done things by mistake. Deploying certificates on virtual machines can be complex in a development environment, but we managed to do that with Prisma Cloud."
"As a pure-play CSPM, it is pretty good. From the data exposure perspective, Prisma Cloud does a fairly good job. Purely from the perspective of reading the conflicts, it is able to highlight any data exposures that I might be having."
"Due to the maturity of most companies, security posture management is the most valuable feature."
"Cloud security posture management is the preferred feature among other vendors."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"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."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"The technical support is good."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"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 can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"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."
"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."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"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."
"For some custom policies, we need more features."
"The first time I looked at Prisma Cloud, it took me a while to understand how to implement the integration or how to enable features by using the interface for integration. That portion can probably be improved."
"The UI could be improved."
"The alignment of Twistlock Defender agents with image repositories needs improvement. These deployed agents have no way of differentiating between on-premise and cloud-based image repositories. If I deploy a Defender agent to secure an on-premise Kubernetes cluster, that agent also tries to scan my ECR image repositories on AWS. So, we have limited options for aligning those Defenders with the repositories that we want them to scan. It is scanning everything rather than giving us the ability to be real granular in choosing which agents can scan which repositories."
"In terms of securing cloud-native development at build time, a lot of improvement is needed. Currently, it's more a runtime solution than a build-time solution. For runtime, I would rate it at seven out of 10, but for build-time there is a lot of work to be done."
"We have discovered that Prisma is not functioning properly with GCP."
"While the code security feature has undergone recent enhancements, there is room for improvement in terms of its cost module."
"The UI could use some improvement; we usually find the information we're looking for, but what fields can be clicked on and what workflow to follow to get the required information is not always evident. Sometimes we're all over the place, clicking around to drill in and uncover the alert and investigation details we're looking for."
"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 documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Container Security with 82 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". 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 ". Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, AWS Security Hub and Orca Security, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Qualys VMDR and Sysdig Secure. See our Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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.
