We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Workload and SUSE NeuVector based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"The most valuable feature of PingSafe is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"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."
"PingSafe provides email alerts and ranks issues based on severity, such as high, critical, etc., that help us prioritize issues."
"The offensive security feature is valuable because it publicly detects the offensive and vulnerable things present in our domain or applications. It checks any applications with public access. Some of the applications give public access to certain files or are present over a particular domain. It detects and lets us know with evidence. That is quite good. It is protecting our infrastructure quite well."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"Generally speaking, Cisco support is considered one of the best in the networking products and stack."
"It's stable."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is security."
"The solution offers 100% telemetry coverage. The telemetry you collect is not sampled, it's not intermittent. It's complete. You see everything in it, including full visibility of all activities on your endpoints and in your network."
"By using Tetration insight, we are able to get the latency on our level accounts and we can determine whatever the issue is with the application latency itself."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that we don't have to do packet captures on the network."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"Some of the navigation and some aspects of the portal may be a little bit confusing."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"The Infrastructure as Code service available in PingSafe and the services available in AWS cloud security can be merged so that we can get the security data directly from AWS cloud in PingSafe. This way, all the data related to security will be in one single place. Currently, we have to check a couple of things on PingSafe, and we have to validate that same data on the AWS Cloud to be sure. If they can collaborate like that, it will be great."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"Secure Workload is a little complicated to use, and the dashboard isn't intuitive, so it takes a while to learn how to use it."
"The integration could be better, especially with different types of solutions."
"They should scale down the hardware a bit. The initial hardware investment is two million dollars so it's a price point problem. The issue with the price comes from the fact that you have to have it with enormous storage and enormous computes."
"The product must be integrated with the cloud."
"It is highly scalable, but there is a limitation that it is only available on Cisco devices."
"It is not so easy to use and configure. It needs a bunch of further resources to work, which is mainly the biggest downside of it. The deployment is huge."
"The multi-tenancy, redundancy, backup and restore functionalities, as well as the monitoring aspects of the solution, need improvement. The solution offers virtually no enterprise-grade possibility for monitoring."
"There was a controversy when Cisco reduced the amount of data they kept, and the solution became quite cost-intensive, which made its adoption challenging….Although they have modified it now, I preferred the previous version, and I wish all the functionality were back under the same product."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 19th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 13 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 15th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 7 reviews. Cisco Secure Workload is rated 8.4, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Workload writes "A solution that provides good technical support but its high cost makes it challenging for users to adopt it". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Cisco Secure Workload is most compared with Akamai Guardicore Segmentation, Illumio, VMware NSX, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Cisco ACI, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Sysdig Secure. See our Cisco Secure Workload vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
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.