We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is highly regarded for its exceptional resource-sharing and segmentation capabilities. Snyk earns praise for its developer-friendly approach and range of scanning features. Snyk also stands out for its software composition analysis and compatibility with containers. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security reviewers stressed a need for better documentation. They would also like the solution to incorporate features like zero trust and access control. Users said Snyk should work on improving compatibility and enhancing their vulnerability database.
Service and Support: Red Hat has been praised for its efficient and effective technical support. Some Snyk customers said support could better organize and prioritize requests.
Ease of Deployment: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires users to create various customer resource files and deploy an image as a container, which is a time-consuming process that can take days or weeks to configure. Snyk's setup is simple and uncomplicated, with users reporting positive experiences and excellent support from the vendor team.
Pricing: Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced, and Red Hat offers affordable bundled pricing options. Snyk is considered expensive relative to other solutions. Users say it is better suited for larger companies or enterprises that can afford it.
ROI: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes provides extensive security features, while Snyk emphasizes cost-effective vulnerability identification.
Comparison Results: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is preferred over Snyk. Users appreciate its comprehensive setup process, scalability, and ability to run multiple containers. It also offers a hybrid cloud approach and seamless integration with other solutions. Some users encountered difficulties integrating Snyk with existing tools.
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"Our previous product took a lot of man hours to manage. Once we got Singularity Cloud Workload Security, it freed up our time to work on other tasks."
"The solution's most valuable features are its ability to detect vulnerabilities inside AWS resources and its ability to rescan after a specific duration set by the administrator."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The benefit of working with the solution is the fact that it's very straightforward...It is a perfectly stable product since the details are very accurate."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The technical support is good."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The solution has great features and is quite stable."
"The most valuable features include enriched information around the vulnerabilities for better triaging, in terms of the vulnerability layer origin and vulnerability tree."
"We have integrated it into our software development environment. We have it in a couple different spots. Developers can use it at the point when they are developing. They can test it on their local machine. If the setup that they have is producing alerts or if they need to upgrade or patch, then at the testing phase when a product is being built for automated testing integrates with Snyk at that point and also produces some checks."
"From the software composition analysis perspective, it first makes sure that we understand what is happening from a third-party perspective for the particular product that we use. This is very difficult when you are building software and incorporating dependencies from other libraries, because those dependencies have dependencies and that chain of dependencies can go pretty deep. There could be a vulnerability in something that is seven layers deep, and it would be very difficult to understand that is even affecting us. Therefore, Snyk provides fantastic visibility to know, "Yes, we have a problem. Here is where it ultimately comes from." It may not be with what we're incorporating, but something much deeper than that."
"It is easy for developers to use. The documentation is clear as well as the APIs are good and easily readable. It's a good solution overall."
"Snyk is a good and scalable tool."
"Snyk performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"When we request any changes, they must be reflected in the next update."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"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 addition to the console alerts, I would like PingSafe to also send email notifications."
"There is room for improvement in the current active licensing model for PingSafe."
"I want PingSafe to integrate additional third-party resources. For example, PingSafe is compatible with Azure and AWS, but Azure AD isn't integrated with AWS. If PingSafe had that ability, it would enrich the data because how users interact with our AWS environment is crucial. All the identity-related features require improvement."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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."
"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 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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The product is very expensive."
"We've also had technical issues with blocking newly introduced vulnerabilities in PRs and that was creating a lot of extra work for developers in trying to close and reopen the PR to get rid of some areas. We ended up having to disable that feature altogether because it wasn't really working for us and it was actually slowing down developer velocity."
"Could include other types of security scanning and statistical analysis"
"Snyk's API and UI features could work better in terms of speed."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
"The feature for automatic fixing of security breaches could be improved."
"We tried to integrate it into our software development environment but it went really badly. It took a lot of time and prevented the developers from using the IDE. Eventually, we didn't use it in the development area... I would like to see better integrations to help the developers get along better with the tool. And the plugin for the IDE is not so good. This is something we would like to have..."
"There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Snyk is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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 Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Snyk 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.
