We performed a comparison between SUSE NeuVector and Tenable Security Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"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 features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the vulnerability assessment."
"The solution has a lean and easy-to-use interface that is not confusing to first-time users."
"We use Tenable to scan all of our environments and plugins for vulnerabilities. Tenable helps us discover network vulnerabilities to threats and piracy."
"The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis."
"It's a very useful tool."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"Tenable.sc's best features are the availability model, accident management, and scoring."
"Feature-wise, Tenable Security Center is a very fast tool with many dashboards and reports, and it covers all our systems."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"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."
"The solution should provide better web application features and support."
"Tenable's reporting engine needs improvement. It needs to be more efficient and add more features."
"The tool's initial configuration is not so easy."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
"Tenable SC can improve by adding more integrations with HCI-type tools and more accurate vulnerability detection."
"The solution is expensive."
"Tenable has some problems with agents going offline during scanning and lag between agents and the security center."
"Support could be faster."
SUSE NeuVector is ranked 19th in Container Security with 7 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Sysdig Falco and Sysdig Secure, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and Horizon3.ai.
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.
