We performed a comparison between Aqua Cloud Security Platform and Uptycs based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)."Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"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 ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"The cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"The most valuable features of PingSafe are the asset inventory and issue indexing."
"The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"From what I understand, the initial setup is simple."
"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 helpful feature of Aqua Security is Drift Prevention, which is a feature that allows images to be immutable. In addition, one of the main reasons we went with Aqua Security is because it provides strong protection when it comes to runtime security."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"Support is very helpful."
"Aqua Security allowed us to gain visibility into the vulnerabilities that were present in the container images, that were being rolled out, the amount of risk that we were introducing to the platform, and provided us a look into the container environment by introducing access control mechanisms. In addition, when it came to runtime-level policies, we could restrict container access to resources in our environment, such as network-level or other application-level access."
"They have multiple great features."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"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."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"There's an array of upcoming versions with numerous features to be incorporated into the roadmap. Customers particularly appreciate the service's emphasis on intensive security, especially the secret scanning aspect. During the proof of concept (POC) phase, the system is required to gather logs from the customer's environment. This process entails obtaining specific permissions, especially in terms of gateway access. While most permissions for POC are manageable, the need for various permissions may need improvement, especially in the context of security."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"Customized queries should be made easier to improve PingSafe."
"The integration with Oracle has room for improvement."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"Sometimes I got stressed with the UI."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"The integrations on CICD could be improved. If Aqua had more plugins or container images to integrate and automate more easily on CICD, it would be better."
"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."
"There's room for improvement, particularly in management capabilities as it may not be comprehensive enough for all customers, and it has been lacking in the realm of cloud security posture management."
"We end up facing a lot of issues after upgrades."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 8th in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) with 16 reviews while Uptycs is ranked 19th in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) with 1 review. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Uptycs is rated 8.0. 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 Uptycs writes "Great features, good support, and lots of functionality". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, whereas Uptycs is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, Wiz, Orca Security and Lacework.
See our list of best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) vendors, best Container Security vendors, and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) 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.