We performed a comparison between Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and SUSE NeuVector based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is preferred over SUSE NeuVector. Users appreciate Prisma Cloud's comprehensive visibility and management capabilities. The solution stands out for its ability to provide security across multi- and hybrid-cloud environments, making it a popular option for cloud security and compliance management.
"Prisma Cloud also provides the visibility and control you need, regardless of how complex or distributed your cloud environments become. It helps to simplify that complexity. Now we know what the best practices are, and if something is missing we know."
"The framework to configure controls is pretty good; it's pretty sophisticated. We can implement a fair amount of testing for a fair number of controls."
"We were pleased with Prisma's custom and built-in reports. We could go into the dashboard and see all these notifications telling us which subscriptions didn't have TLS 1.2 enabled. The security controls were the most valuable features."
"I would say Twistlock is a fairly sophisticated tool."
"I was looking for a vulnerability scanner and I was looking for one place in which I could find everything. This tool not only does vulnerability scanning, but it also gives me an asset management tool."
"Integrating with a CI/CD pipeline and incorporating a vulnerability assessment process are highly effective features, especially when combined with runtime protection."
"The most valuable feature is the closed VPN connection, which provides better performance than traditional VPN boxes. For example, let's say a user in New York State normally connects in the East, but if they travel to the UK, they can connect to the same portal, which automatically redirects to any VPN gateway. We can control traffic based on Active Directory groups instead of the user's IP. That means a user in New York can access his application based on his user ID and AD group access when he travels to the UK or anywhere else."
"The CVEs are valuable because we used to have a tool to scan CVEs, at the language level, for the dependencies that our developers had. What is good about Prisma Cloud is that the CVEs are not only from the software layer, but from all layers: the language, the base image, and you also have CVEs from the host. It covers the full base of security."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"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 tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"For some custom policies, we need more features."
"More documentation with real-world use cases would be helpful."
"While Prisma provides a lot of visibility, it also creates a ton of work. Most customers that implement Prisma Cloud have thousands of alerts that are urgent."
"Prisma Cloud supports generating CSV files, but I would also like it to generate PDF files for reporting."
"They charge seven workloads for monitoring one compute, and that is quite expensive. This makes it difficult to move fully with the compute part because of the workload."
"They need to improve the API gateway."
"They should improve the user experience."
"Areas like the deployment of their defenders and their central control need manual intervention. They should focus more on automation. They have a very generic case for small companies. However, for bigger companies to work, we have to do a lot of changes to our system to accommodate it. Therefore, they should change their system or deployment models so it can be easy to integrate into existing architectures."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"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 tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Container Security with 82 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 19th in Container Security with 7 reviews. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform and AWS Security Hub, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Sysdig Falco, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Sysdig Secure and Snyk. See our Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.