We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Trend Micro Deep 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 most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"It used to guide me about an alert. There is something called an alert guide. I used to click on the alert guide, and I could read everything. I could read about the alert and how to resolve it. I used to love that feature."
"The ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"The most valuable aspects of PingSafe are its alerting system and the remediation guidance it provides."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"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."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"Automated virtual patching is a good feature."
"The solution is quite secure."
"It has a perfect SaaS which integrates with AWS, offering flexibility to deploy quickly and easily in the cloud."
"It can scale well."
"It is stable and we have not faced any challenges during the rolled out"
"For day-to-day efficiency, it provides a good dashboard, so our team can be active 24/7 instead of doing a lot of manual stuff. We just look at the dashboard, and it's all done."
"It is connected into an intelligence database and is quick to pick up new threats. It also reduces my workload with its speed and the protection that it provides."
"Very user-friendly interface, easy to understand."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"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."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"Customized queries should be made easier to improve PingSafe."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"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."
"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 initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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."
"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 visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The initial setup needs improvement, as it was a bit challenging."
"They need to build in a central console because central integration is not very good right now."
"The solution could use more integration."
"The workloads must be better."
"We'd like to see extended capacity in the on-premises versions."
"We have had some issues when it drains some of the resources of the server."
"The risk is very complex. We need our tools to be more intelligent, more automated, more detectable."
"The problem with this solution is that if you go on large sites you have to have an external database, which would increase the cost."
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 Trend Micro Deep Security is ranked 1st in Virtualization Security with 81 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Trend Micro Deep Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Micro Deep Security writes "High availability, effective VPM, and responsive support". 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 Qualys VMDR, whereas Trend Micro Deep Security is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security.
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.
