We performed a comparison of Qualys VMDR and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Qualys VMDR is praised for its user-friendly interface, prioritization system, and customizable dashboard. It effectively addresses vulnerabilities and offers valuable scanning capabilities. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Reviewers said Qualys VMDR could improve by offering more customization options and integrating more seamlessly with other systems. 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: Qualys VMDR's customer service is mostly considered accessible and responsive. However, some reviewers reported slow response times and expressed a desire for more skilled support personnel. 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: The Qualys VMDR setup is considered uncomplicated and efficient, requiring only a short amount of time. A few users encountered challenges with integration and ensuring data privacy. The setup process for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes involves multiple steps, and total deployment can take days or weeks.
Pricing: The cost of Qualys VMDR varies depending on the organization's business requirements. Some find it affordable, but others consider it costly compared to alternatives. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
ROI: Qualys VMDR offers users a solid ROI by efficiently identifying vulnerabilities and effectively reducing risks. Our users have given no feedback on the ROI of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes so far.
Comparison Results: Qualys VMDR is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Qualys is highly regarded for its intuitive interface and extensive vulnerability tracking. Users appreciate its continuous monitoring and asset-tagging capabilities. Some users say Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes lacks certain features compared to its competitors. There is room for improvement in deployment, testing, documentation, and stability.
"PingSafe's integration is smooth. They are highly customer-oriented, and the integration went well for us."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"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."
"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."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"The most valuable features of PingSafe are the asset inventory and issue indexing."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"Technical support is fantastic."
"There are fewer false positives when using this solution."
"There are many features. Its reliability, ease of installation, ease of use, and the richness of the information provided are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of Qualys Container Security is the detailed information in the reports and the remediation. This is done to make sure there are no vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"I like that we have many scanners and channels that don't overload. It helps us scan and track easily. Also, the tagging system is good for tagging. We can still use QualysAgent task ID tools even if tags aren't made."
"Qualys has a continuous endpoint monitoring feature for agent-based scanning. Once you deploy the solution, it monitors everything that is happening every 30 minutes. Then, if there are any vulnerabilities, they are reported."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"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."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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 is the ability to share resources."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"When we get a new finding from PingSafe, I wish we could get an alert in the console, so we can work on it before we see it in the report. It would be very useful for the team that is actively working on the PingSafe platform, so we can close the issue the same day before it appears in the daily report."
"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."
"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."
"I would like additional integrations."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"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."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"What we have found is that the solution is not closely tied with the patch management. It is okay with newer ones, like Windows 10 machines; it gives the correct patch. But for Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008, it does not give us the correct patch so we have to manually identify the patches. This is a major problem."
"It's too early for me to say if there is any room for improvement since we're in the first couple of months of using this solution."
"Qualys VM's machine learning and artificial intelligence features could be improved."
"The customer support is very bad."
"The ability to manage user accounts and give rights to the operator to know about abnormalities of applications is something that needs improvement."
"There seems to be a lack of easy onboarding into Qualys."
"I would like to have CSPM, a continuous scan-like cloud added to the solution."
"The IoT scan is not great."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The solution's price could be better."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"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 solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
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 →
Qualys VMDR is ranked 11th in Container Security with 77 reviews while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews. Qualys VMDR is rated 8.2, while Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Qualys VMDR writes "Good visibility but expensive and needs better support". 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 ". Qualys VMDR is most compared with Tenable Nessus, Tenable Security Center, Rapid7 InsightVM, Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and Tenable Vulnerability Management, whereas Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Sysdig Secure. See our Qualys VMDR 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.
