We performed a comparison between Bridgecrew 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 Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)."PingSafe offers security solutions for both Kubernetes and CI/CD pipelines."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"The most valuable features of PingSafe are cloud misconfiguration, Kubernetes, and IaC scanning."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"In cases where they have automatic remediations, you can click a button and it'll just fix the configuration for you."
"New users don't have too many problems with the product. They have a lot of training documentation around it."
"This product has the best results in terms of the lowest number of false-positives and false-negatives."
"The most valuable features of Tenable SC are scanning, reporting, dashboards, and automation."
"Tenable's most valuable features are the credential scan, vulnerability reports, and vulnerability ratings (VPR)."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the vulnerability assessment."
"The usability is really good. It's very easy to use and a good platform. It is scalable and very stable. The technical support is fine and the setup is super easy."
"Support is knowledgeable."
"The feature we've liked most recently was being able to take the YARA rules from FireEye and put them into Tenable's scan for the most recent SolarWinds exploit. That was really useful."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"The resolution suggestions could be better, and the compliance features could be more customizable for Indian regulations. Overall, the compliance aspects are good. It gives us a comprehensive list, and its feedback is enough to bring us into compliance with regulations, but it doesn't give us the specific objects."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"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."
"Their search feature could be better."
"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'd like to see better monitoring and the ability to deny certain resources from being scanned."
"The biggest issue that I see companies run into is that they immediately think that, "Oh, this solution will be right, simply due to the name." But that's the same issue Splunk runs into. People will immediately jump to Splunk being the best SIEM tool, just because they're the largest. When in reality, QRadar, LogRhythm, and all these other ones are performing similar functions and would actually fit better in some people's environments. Therefore, it's important a company does its homework and does not assume one size fits all."
"Security can always be improved."
"I think the vendor training provided for Tenable.sc could be a lower price. It's quite expensive for the training."
"The user interface can be improved."
"There is not much room for improvement. However, there should be a guide that describes the step-by-step procedures for doing tasks. Otherwise, training is required from a senior guy to a junior guy."
"Certain aspects require manual effort, such as exporting and analyzing data for our dashboards. The built-in components of the Tenable solution are somewhat clumsy that require external tools. So, this is an area of improvement."
"The tool's initial configuration is not so easy."
"For downloading reports, we have to go to the scan and then we have to go to the reports and download the Excel or CSV or PDF. I think these menus and clicks can be minimized."
"The vulnerability scan does not work correctly until the access privileges are set by the system administrator."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Bridgecrew is ranked 21st in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 2 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Risk-Based Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Bridgecrew is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bridgecrew writes "Multi-cloud, good scanning, and offers extensive guides". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Bridgecrew is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Horizon3.ai.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
