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."Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"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 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 visibility is the best part of the solution."
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"PingSafe offers an intuitive user interface that lets us navigate quickly and easily."
"PingSafe's integration is smooth. They are highly customer-oriented, and the integration went well for us."
"Scalability is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is security."
"Instead of proving that all the access control lists are in place and all the EPGs are correct, we can just point the auditor to a dashboard and point out that there aren't any escaped conversations. It saves an enormous, enormous amount of time."
"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."
"A complete and powerful micro-segmentation solution."
"The product offers great visibility into the network so we can enforce security measures."
"It's stable."
"The most valuable feature is micro-segmentation, which is the most important with respect to visibility."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"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."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"We are getting reports only in a predefined form. I would like to have customized reports so that I can see how many issues are open or closed today or in two weeks."
"One of our use cases was setting up a firewall for our endpoints, specifically for our remote users... We were hoping to utilize SentinelOne's firewall capabilities, but there were limitations on how many URLs we could implement. Because of those limitations on the number of URLs, we weren't able to utilize that feature in the way we had hoped to."
"They could generally give us better comprehensive rules."
"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 our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"It is highly scalable, but there is a limitation that it is only available on Cisco devices."
"It has an uninviting interface."
"There is some overlap between Cisco Tetration and AppDynamics and I need to have a single pane of glass, rather than have to jump between different tools."
"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."
"The integration could be better, especially with different types of solutions."
"I'd like to see better documentation for advanced features. The documentation is fairly basic. I would also like to see better integration with other applications."
"The interface is really helpful for technical people, but it is not user-friendly."
"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."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Workload is ranked 20th 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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Sysdig Falco, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Aqua Cloud Security Platform 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.
