We performed a comparison between CoreOS Clair and Tenable.io Container Security 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 cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"The ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"CoreOS Clair's best feature is detection accuracy."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"Currently, I haven't implemented the solution due to its deprecation by the site. However, I can highlight some benefits of Tenable Cloud Security, a cybersecurity solution with various features for scanning vulnerabilities in both cloud environments and on-premises container security."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"Tenable.io detects misconfiguration when you deploy a Docker or Kubernetes container. It's much better to remedy these issues during deployment instead of waiting until the container is already in the production environment."
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"Sometimes the Storyline ID is a bit wacky."
"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."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"Crafting customized policies can be tricky."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"There is room for improvement in the current active licensing model for PingSafe."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"An area for improvement is that CoreOS Clair doesn't provide information about the location of vulnerabilities it detects."
"They need to work on auto-remediation so it's easier for the security team to act quickly when certain assets or resources are deployed. The latest version has a CIS benchmark that you need to meet for containers in the cloud, but more automation is needed."
"I feel that in certain areas this product has false positives which the company should work on. They should also try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing. Finally, the vulnerability assessment feature should be increased to other hardware devices, apart from firewalls."
"Tenable.io Container Security should improve integration modules. It should also improve stability."
"The initial setup is highly complex."
"The support is tricky to reach, so we would like better-oriented technical support enabled."
"I believe integration plays a crucial role for Tenable, particularly in terms of connecting with other products and various container solutions like Docker or Kubernetes. It seems that in future updates, enhanced integration is something I would appreciate. Currently, there is integration with Docker, but when it comes to Kubernetes or other container solutions, it appears to be a challenge, especially with on-prem scanners."
"The stability and setup phase of the product are areas with shortcomings where improvements are needed."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Container Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
CoreOS Clair is ranked 26th in Container Security with 1 review while Tenable.io Container Security is ranked 21st in Container Security with 7 reviews. CoreOS Clair is rated 8.0, while Tenable.io Container Security is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of CoreOS Clair writes "Excellent detection accuracy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable.io Container Security writes "It helps you catch misconfigurations before they go into a production environment where they're harder to deal with". CoreOS Clair is most compared with JFrog Xray, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Snyk, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Aqua Cloud Security Platform, whereas Tenable.io Container Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Wiz, Trivy and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.
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.