We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security was lauded for its strong adherence to security best practices. It particularly excels in endpoint protection and its ability to leverage machine learning and AI. 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. CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security could improve its Kubernetes and GCP support.
Service and Support: Customers using Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes gave feedback and regard the support they receive as being of high quality. CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security users are generally content with the support team's assistance and promptness.
Ease of Deployment: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires considerable time and effort to deploy due to its complex configuration process. The setup for CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security was deemed easy, but some users struggled with the Kubernetes implementation.
Pricing: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions. Users consider the pricing of CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security to be fair, but it may be pricier than on-premises alternatives.
Comparison Results: Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is preferred over CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security. Red Hat offers a hybrid cloud approach and flexible integration. The solution's resource-sharing and segmentation features are highly praised. Red Hat is considered moderately priced, while CrowdStrike is seen as fair but slightly expensive.
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"Our previous product took a lot of man hours to manage. Once we got Singularity Cloud Workload Security, it freed up our time to work on other tasks."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"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."
"PingSafe has a dashboard that can detect the criticality of a particular problem, whether it falls under critical, medium, or low vulnerability."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"The most valuable feature of CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is its lightweight sensor, taking minimal space and not impacting server performance."
"The immediate mitigation of potential threats and instant alerts are valuable."
"The RTR feature stands out as particularly valuable to me due to its capability to log into machines."
"The most significant benefit is how quickly malware and other malicious attacks are detected."
"It is fully cloud-based, so we don't need to invest in third-party agents repeatedly."
"The initial setup is easy ."
"The most valuable feature of Falcon Cloud Security is its comprehensive threat-hunting ability."
"It's easy to gather insights and conduct analysis about existing threats."
"The technical support is good."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"It is easy to install and manage."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"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."
"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."
"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."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"It would be really helpful if the solution improves its agent deployment process."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"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."
"I would like additional integrations."
"The UI part needs to be improved."
"It would be more convenient if there was an easier way to install CrowdStrike, perhaps through better integration with Active Directory."
"The log scale or Humio side of it where it collects the data and expands into the XDR world still needs time to develop in terms of the way it combines the data and metadata that flows into the platform. I know they're working on it."
"Incorporating threat intelligence into the system would be a valuable addition."
"There should be cloud storage scanning. We would like to have cloud storage vulnerability and threat management on any cloud storage."
"Different file options should be available, and clients should be able to select from the options."
"The threat intelligence and user behavioral analysis could be more comprehensive."
"It gets the work done, but the main problem with the solution is that if you remediate anything, it takes 45 days for you to get any of the features displayed on the dashboard. This is the real weakness of CrowdStrike. Their customer support is also not ready to help with it. If you remediate any cloud vulnerability that they are giving you, such as removing a host from your organization, it takes around 45 days for them to remove it from their console."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The testing process could 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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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."
"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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is ranked 9th in Container Security with 13 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews. CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is rated 8.8, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security writes "Enhances the overall safety of our company's environment from cyber threats". 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 ". CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Wiz, Qualys VMDR and Orca Security, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, Qualys VMDR and Sysdig Secure. See our CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security 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.