We performed a comparison between Tenable.io Container Security and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.io Container Security excels at identifying weaknesses and misconfigurations. Snyk is commended for its scanning features and ability to generate pull requests and resolve problems automatically. Tenable.io Container Security could its auto-remediation, asset visibility, and compliance system customization. Snyk could work on improving compatibility while expanding its vulnerability database and enhancing its reporting mechanism.
Service and Support: Users say Tenable.io support is hindered by technical challenges. Some users said they value Snyk's proactive approach and the abundance of resources they provide, while others said that Snyk should rethink how their support team organizes and prioritizes requests.
Ease of Deployment: Both products are relatively easy to set up with good support from their respective teams.The setup process for Tenable.io Container Security is made easier by solid documentation. Tenable.io takes around one or two weeks to deploy on average, while Snyk's implementation process can take a couple of days or a few weeks. Integrating Snyk with different repositories or CI/CD systems is generally considered to be simple, although some users reported challenges.
Pricing: Tenable.io Container Security's cost is determined by the application's page count. Snyk's pricing is viewed as costly compared to alternative options. Nevertheless, but many users said that Snyk's pricing is justifiable for businesses, as it includes integrated features and avoids additional expenses.
ROI: Tenable.io Container Security yields an ROI by enhancing container security and averting security incidents. Snyk emphasizes economical bug resolution early in the development process, possibly resulting in a significant return on investment.
Comparison Results: Tenable.io Container Security is preferred Snyk. Users appreciate its efficient setup process, extensive vulnerability detection, and ability to identify misconfiguration. Tenable.io Container Security also offers superior technical support and a customizable compliance system. Snyk lacks some of the advanced features and support options provided by Tenable.io.
"PingSafe's most valuable feature is its unified console."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"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."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"The ease of use of the platform is very nice."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"It has an accurate database of vulnerabilities with a low amount of false positives."
"The solution's vulnerability database, in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy, is very high-level. As far as I know, it's the best among their competitors."
"The most valuable features are their GitLab and JIRA integrations. The GitLab integration lets us pull projects in pretty easily, so that it's pretty minimal for developers to get it set up. Using the JIRA integration, it's also pretty easy to get the information that is generated, as a result of that GitLab integration, back to our teams in a non-intrusive way and in a workflow that we are already using."
"We have integrated it into our software development environment. We have it in a couple different spots. Developers can use it at the point when they are developing. They can test it on their local machine. If the setup that they have is producing alerts or if they need to upgrade or patch, then at the testing phase when a product is being built for automated testing integrates with Snyk at that point and also produces some checks."
"Snyk helps me pinpoint security errors in my code."
"Our customers find container scans most valuable. They are always talking about it."
"The most valuable features include enriched information around the vulnerabilities for better triaging, in terms of the vulnerability layer origin and vulnerability tree."
"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."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"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."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"Their search feature could be better."
"The documentation sometimes is not relevant. It does not cover the latest updates, scanning, and configurations. The documentation for some things is wrong and does not cover some configuration scannings for the multiple project settings."
"We would like to have upfront knowledge on how easy it should be to just pull in an upgraded dependency, e.g., even introduce full automation for dependencies supposed to have no impact on the business side of things. Therefore, we would like some output when you get the report with the dependencies. We want to get additional information on the expected impact of the business code that is using the dependency with the newer version. This probably won't be easy to add, but it would be helpful."
"Because Snyk has so many integrations and so many things it can do, it's hard to really understand all of them and to get that information to each team that needs it... If there were more self-service, perhaps tutorials or overviews for new teams or developers, so that they could click through and see things themselves, that would help."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
"The way Snyk notifies if we have an issue, there are a few options: High vulnerability or medium vulnerability. The problem with that is high vulnerabilities are too broad, because there are too many. If you enable notifications, you get a lot of notifications, When you get many notifications, they become irrelevant because they're not specific. I would prefer to have control over the notifications and somehow decide if I want to get only exploitable vulnerabilities or get a specific score for a vulnerability. Right now, we receive too many high vulnerabilities. If we enable notifications, then we just get a lot of spam message. Therefore, we would like some type of filtering system to be built-in for the system to be more precise."
"Compatibility with other products would be great."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"A feature we would like to see is the ability to archive and store historical data, without actually deleting it. It's a problem because it throws my numbers off. When I'm looking at the dashboard's current vulnerabilities, it's not accurate."
"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."
"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."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Tenable.io Container Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews while Tenable.io Container Security is ranked 21st in Container Security with 7 reviews. Snyk is rated 8.2, while Tenable.io Container Security is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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". Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode, whereas Tenable.io Container Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Wiz, Trivy and Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes. See our Snyk 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.