We performed a comparison between Tenable.io Container Security and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.io Container Security excels at analyzing vulnerabilities and identifying misconfiguration. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes receives praise for its resource-sharing capabilities, segmentation, reliable performance, and user-friendly web interface. Tenable.io could improve by automating remediation and CIS benchmarks while enhancing asset visibility and implementing customizable compliance options. 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: Some users encountered technical issues when contacting Tenable.io support. 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: Tenable.io Container Security comes with clear setup documentation, making the deployment process smooth. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes requires considerable time and effort to deploy due to its complex configuration process.
Pricing: Tenable.io Container Security's setup cost is determined by the application's page count. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is moderately priced and cheaper if purchased in a bundle with other Red Hat solutions.
Comparison Results: Tenable.io Container Security is preferred over Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. Tenable.io Container Security offers a smooth setup process with helpful guidebooks, quick deployment, and the ability to identify misconfigurations before going live. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes has a more complicated setup process, requires more resources for deployment, and lacks certain features offered by other solutions.
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"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."
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to navigate."
"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"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."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"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."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"Currently, I haven't implemented the solution due to its deprecation by the site. However, I can highlight some benefits of Tenable Cloud Security, a cybersecurity solution with various features for scanning vulnerabilities in both cloud environments and on-premises container security."
"Tenable.io detects misconfiguration when you deploy a Docker or Kubernetes container. It's much better to remedy these issues during deployment instead of waiting until the container is already in the production environment."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"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."
"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."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"Their search feature could be better."
"I export CSV. I cannot export graphs. Restricting it to the CSV format has its own disadvantages. These are all machine IP addresses and information. I cannot change it to the JSON format. The export functionality can be improved."
"They need more experienced support personnel."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"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."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The testing process could be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
"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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"I believe integration plays a crucial role for Tenable, particularly in terms of connecting with other products and various container solutions like Docker or Kubernetes. It seems that in future updates, enhanced integration is something I would appreciate. Currently, there is integration with Docker, but when it comes to Kubernetes or other container solutions, it appears to be a challenge, especially with on-prem scanners."
"The initial setup is highly complex."
"The support is tricky to reach, so we would like better-oriented technical support enabled."
"They need to work on auto-remediation so it's easier for the security team to act quickly when certain assets or resources are deployed. The latest version has a CIS benchmark that you need to meet for containers in the cloud, but more automation is needed."
"I feel that in certain areas this product has false positives which the company should work on. They should also try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing. Finally, the vulnerability assessment feature should be increased to other hardware devices, apart from firewalls."
"The stability and setup phase of the product are areas with shortcomings where improvements are needed."
"Tenable.io Container Security should improve integration modules. It should also improve stability."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Container Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Tenable.io Container Security is ranked 21st in Container Security with 7 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Tenable.io Container Security is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable.io Container Security writes "It helps you catch misconfigurations before they go into a production environment where they're harder to deal with". 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 CoreOS Clair, whereas Tenable.io Container Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Wiz, Trivy and SUSE NeuVector. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Tenable.io Container Security 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.