We performed a comparison between Aqua Security Platform and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Users appreciate Aqua Security Platform for its container image security, malware detection features, and ability to patch on-demand. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Users say Aqua Security Platform should improve its automated reporting and log forwarding, reduce resource usage, and overhaul its UI. 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: Aqua Security Platform users have praised its responsive and helpful customer service, but a few encountered situations where they had to resolve problems themselves. 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: Aqua Security Platform's initial setup can be complex and time-consuming, depending on the environment, and may necessitate specialized personnel for maintenance and updates. The setup process for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves multiple steps and total deployment can take days or weeks.
Pricing: Aqua Security Platform is priced competitively compared to some premium solutions and falls in the middle pricing tier. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Aqua Security Platform over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Users appreciate Aqua Security Platform for its straightforward setup process and features like vulnerability checking, malware detection, on-demand patching, and strong runtime security. They also mention that Aqua Security Platform offers flexible and scalable container security, supported by helpful customer service. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is criticized for its more complex setup process and higher resource requirements.
"We really appreciate the Slack integration. When we have an incident, we get an instant notification. We also use Joe Sandbox, which Singularity can integrate with, so we can verify if a threat is legitimate."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"Cloud Native Security is a tool that has good monitoring features."
"It saves time, makes your environment more secure, and improves compliance. PingSafe helps with audits, ensuring that you are following best practices for cloud security. You don't need to be an expert to use it and improve your security."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and manage."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"Aqua Security helps us to check the vulnerability of image assurance and check for malware."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"We use Aqua Security for the container security features."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The technical support is good."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"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."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"The could improve their mean time to detect."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"They want to release improvements to their product to work with other servers because now there are more focused on the Kubernetes environment. They need to improve the normal servers. I would like to have more options."
"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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"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."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should 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."
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 →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 7th in Container Security with 16 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". 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 ". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, SUSE NeuVector and Sysdig Secure, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Sysdig Secure and Qualys VMDR. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform 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.