We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Trend Micro Deep Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"I like CSPM the most. It captures a lot of alerts within a short period of time. When an alert gets triggered on the cloud, it throws an alert within half an hour, which is very reasonable. It is a plus point for us."
"Cloud Native Security's most valuable features include cloud misconfiguration detection and remediation, compliance monitoring, a robust authentication security engine, and cloud threat detection and response capabilities."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"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."
"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 is connected into an intelligence database and is quick to pick up new threats. It also reduces my workload with its speed and the protection that it provides."
"Deep Security enables us to bridge the gap between patching windows using the Virtual Patching feature. This allows us to make sure full patching is tested properly in our testing environments before rollout."
"Virtual patching is a wonderful feature where we do a recommendation scan and an internal assessment on the server, and it updates the IPS signatures to block any attack. I have seen instances where it has prevented attacks on the end-of-support servers such as 2018 R2, and many years ago, even 2007 servers that were end-of-support. It certainly helped there."
"It is a stable solution...The solution's initial setup was straightforward."
"We like the Smart protection and the Virtual patching."
"Deep Security provides us with a lot of reassurance about security threats. You don't have to worry about a patch not being there in the software. You're confident that all the patches and vulnerabilities are taken care of."
"It is a scalable solution. If required, we can scale it more. That's not an issue...The solution's initial setup process was straightforward."
"The customer service/technical support for this solution is very fast."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"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."
"After closing an alert in Cloud Native Security, it still shows as unresolved."
"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."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"Their search feature could be better."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"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."
"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 documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"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 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 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 →
"The tool should integrate SIM functionality. It should also improve customer support."
"The risk is very complex. We need our tools to be more intelligent, more automated, more detectable."
"Deep Security's reporting functionality could be improved."
"Some of the reporting and integrations could be more robust."
"I've not worked with CrowdStrike Falcon, but one of our customers also had CrowdStrike Falcon on some of the devices. I was only supporting Trend Micro. They had a ransomware attack, but Trend Micro didn't detect that particular ransomware attack, whereas CrowdStrike did."
"Trend Micro Deep Security security and scalability could be improved."
"There should be more tools to trace back. Some sort of module needs to be included to attach all the things. It should be more stable, and the traceback feature should be improved. There were cases when we got virtual analyzer or CMC errors. We got false-positive malware notifications, but we couldn't trace them. I raised a case with Trend Micro two or three times, but they couldn't resolve it. Their support should be improved in terms of technical abilities to troubleshoot complex issues. They should be more knowledgeable."
"I would like to see better pricing. The pricing could be lower."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 16th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Trend Micro Deep Security is ranked 1st in Virtualization Security with 81 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Trend Micro Deep Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Micro Deep Security writes "High availability, effective VPM, and responsive support". 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 Qualys VMDR, whereas Trend Micro Deep Security is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security.
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.