We performed a comparison of Qualys VMDR and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Qualys VMDR is praised for its user-friendly interface, prioritization system, and customizable dashboard. It effectively addresses vulnerabilities and offers valuable scanning capabilities. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Reviewers said Qualys VMDR could improve by offering more customization options and integrating more seamlessly with other systems. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes could improve by enhancing testing capabilities, making command line and configuration processes easier, and incorporating zero trust and access control measures.
Service and Support: Qualys VMDR's customer service is mostly considered accessible and responsive. However, some reviewers reported slow response times and expressed a desire for more skilled support personnel. Customers using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes gave feedback and regard the support they receive as being of high quality.
Ease of Deployment: The Qualys VMDR setup is considered uncomplicated and efficient, requiring only a short amount of time. A few users encountered challenges with integration and ensuring data privacy. The setup process for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves multiple steps, and total deployment can take days or weeks.
Pricing: The cost of Qualys VMDR varies depending on the organization's business requirements. Some find it affordable, but others consider it costly compared to alternatives. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
ROI: Qualys VMDR offers users a solid ROI by efficiently identifying vulnerabilities and effectively reducing risks. Our users have given no feedback on the ROI of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes so far.
Comparison Results: Qualys VMDR is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Qualys is highly regarded for its intuitive interface and extensive vulnerability tracking. Users appreciate its continuous monitoring and asset-tagging capabilities. Some users say Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes lacks certain features compared to its competitors. There is room for improvement in deployment, testing, documentation, and stability.
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"There's real-time threat detection. It can show threats and find issues based on their severity and helps us with real-time monitoring."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"I find the most valuable features are the continuous monitoring. Even on premises, there is constant monitoring."
"It's a good product. After the scan our internet works well. It scans our security posture."
"The most valuable feature is automation."
"Qualys VM had a recent upgrade and the newer version is supporting the cloud."
"The prioritization feature is great. I think it has all of the advanced features that we need."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is a simple solution that makes scanning easy. You just give it a scheduled task, and it will do everything for you."
"We also like the flexibility in their licensing."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"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."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"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."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"The integration with Oracle has room for improvement."
"I export CSV. I cannot export graphs. Restricting it to the CSV format has its own disadvantages. These are all machine IP addresses and information. I cannot change it to the JSON format. The export functionality can be improved."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"A beneficial improvement for PingSafe would be integration with Jira, allowing for a more streamlined ticketing system."
"I'd like to see better onboarding documentation."
"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."
"There's a need to upgrade or fix the potential vulnerability rate. Around 20,000 potential vulnerabilities were showing in Qualys VMDR, but none of the other tools showed them. When we checked, it wasn't the case. Support explained that even small issues were being counted as vulnerabilities, causing issues in our audit. So, the security features could be improved to identify vulnerabilities accurately."
"The reporting and the GUI need improvements."
"I would like to have CSPM, a continuous scan-like cloud added to the solution."
"When you want to cover yourself for scalability, you will be charged for the number you place on the scan itself."
"Make some minimal dashboard improvements."
"The ability to manage user accounts and give rights to the operator to know about abnormalities of applications is something that needs improvement."
"The customer support is very bad."
"It is a struggle to be able to pull our report and to be able to do onboarding using automated tools."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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 solution's price could be better."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Qualys VMDR is ranked 11th in Container Security with 77 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". 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 ". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Sysdig Secure. See our Qualys VMDR 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.
