We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"The remediation process is good."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to navigate."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"PingSafe stands out for its user-friendly interface and intuitive software, making it easy to navigate and use."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"The number-one feature is the monitoring of interactive sessions on our Linux machines. We run an immutable environment, so that nothing is allowed to be changed in production... We're constantly monitoring to make sure that no one is violating that. Threat Stack is what allows us to do that."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"We like the ability of the host security module to monitor the processes running on our servers to help us monitor activity."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"The rules are really great. They give us more visibility and control over what's being triggered. There's a large set of rules that come out-of-the-box. We can customize them and we can create our own rules based on the traffic patterns that we see."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"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."
"We don't get any notifications from PingSafe when the clusters are down."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"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."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"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 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 initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The one thing that we know they're working on, but we don't have through the tool, is the application layer. As we move to a serverless environment, with AWS Fargate or direct Lambda, that's where Threat Stack does not have the capacity to provide feed. Those are areas that it's blind to now..."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 31st in Container Security. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform 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 Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". 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 Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Darktrace, AWS GuardDuty, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Qualys VMDR and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform 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.