Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Container Security
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP
Ranking in Container Security
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (9th), Cloud and Data Center Security (9th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (6th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (5th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (5th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (4th), Compliance Management (6th)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Ranking in Container Security
21st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 2.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is 2.1%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.4%, down from 3.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
Bart Coddens - PeerSpot reviewer
Evolved cloud security with active monitoring but needs interface consistency
The user interface needs work. Sometimes, it is a transition from the old tool to the new CNAPP Two that I currently have, and remnants of the old environment can still be detected. I require consistency in the user interface to ensure everything is streamlined into the same look and feel. More work is needed in fine-tuning the threat data towards your CSPM and activity logs, aligning them with business intelligence, which requires a cohesive console interface. My assessment of CloudGuard CDRs in intrusion detection and threat hunting capabilities is that it still needs some work. All the threat data that comes in, you need to fine tune it a bit.
Daniel Stevens - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers easy management and container connection with HTTPS, but the support needs to improve
I have experience with the solution's setup in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and our company has assisted in the development of a cluster in a research department, but we didn't start from scratch because we have IT professionals who have installed Kubernetes across 12 nodes of a cluster and a new environment can be created for a new platform. I also had another setup experience of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes in Portugal where I had to implement the solution in a cluster of 22 computer servers, which was completed with assistance from the IT department of the company. The initial setup process of the solution can be considered as difficult. The setup process involves using the permissions, subnets and range of IPs, which makes it complex. Deploying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes takes around eight to ten hours for new clusters. The solution's deployment can be divided into three parts. The first part involves OpenStack, where the cluster's resources need to be identified. The second part involves virtualizing assets and identifying other physical assets, for which OpenStack, Kubernetes, or OpenShift are used. The third part of the deployment involves dividing the networks into subnetworks and implementing automation to deploy the microservices using Helm. The number of professionals required for the solution's deployment depends upon the presence of automated scripts. Ideally, two or three professionals are required to set up Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Cloud Security has provided a single view to observe all workloads, prioritization for handling cloud assets, and reduced noise by distinguishing false positives effectively."
"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 multi-cloud support is valuable. They are expanding to different clouds. It is not restricted to only AWS. It allows us to have different clouds on one platform."
"SentinelOne is far superior to our previous solution, Accops, due to its seamless updates, effortless maintenance, and user-friendly interface and dashboard."
"The dashboard is intuitive in terms of design and functionality. Additionally, it gives me an email for all the findings that are open."
"The most valuable features are automated threat response, AI detection, and static and dynamic detection."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"The cloud security posture management identify the risks that are the most critical to our business. We can define certain key assets that are your crown jewels. And whenever something hits on these crown jewels, you get a very high score. So you can really fine tune towards protecting your risk based assets in the cloud."
"Helps identify and correct misconfigurations in cloud environments, ensuring that infrastructure and applications are secure and optimized."
"The most valuable feature is posture management, which gives you complete visibility of all your assets in the cloud and allows you to do governance and compliance."
"The ability to integrate it with Microsoft Azure Sentinel allows us to validate the logs in an even more complex and meaningful way."
"The Compliance engine has helped put our auditors and senior executives at ease, as we can quickly and accurately measure ourselves against hundreds of compliance checks to include CIS benchmarks, PCI, and other best practices."
"The feature that I find most valuable is the blocking feature."
"It provides complete visibility of workload hosted on different cloud platforms including AWS and Azure, along with multiple tenants."
"Customer service is very good."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"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 of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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."
 

Cons

"A two-month grace period for extended searches would be a valuable improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the current active licensing model for PingSafe."
"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."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"The reporting works well, but sometimes the severity classifications are inaccurate. Sometimes, it flags an issue as high-impact, but it should be a lower severity."
"There's an array of upcoming versions with numerous features to be incorporated into the roadmap. Customers particularly appreciate the service's emphasis on intensive security, especially the secret scanning aspect. During the proof of concept (POC) phase, the system is required to gather logs from the customer's environment. This process entails obtaining specific permissions, especially in terms of gateway access. While most permissions for POC are manageable, the need for various permissions may need improvement, especially in the context of security."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"They need more experienced support personnel."
"Their service needs improvement."
"The entire system is complicated, and the setup process may not cater to the company's demands."
"CloudGuard could be improved by including integration with vendors other than AWS, especially Azure, especially in permissions."
"The costs are high."
"The reporting has a lot of opportunities to continuously improve so that we can continue to show value."
"The solution could be improved with a greater analysis of its Microsoft Security score."
"The license cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Down the road, we would like to see automation. That is probably a feature that most people want. If they can automate patching a vulnerability, it will be much easier."
"The support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"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 testing process could be improved."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is based on modules, which was ideal for us."
"Its pricing was a little less than other providers."
"It is a little expensive. I would rate it a four out of ten for pricing."
"The tool is cost-effective."
"The pricing is fair. It is not inexpensive, and it is also not expensive. When managing a large organization, it is going to be costly, but it meets the business needs. In terms of what is out there on the market, it is fair and comparable to what I have seen, so I do not have any complaints about the cost"
"It is cheap."
"SentinelOne offers excellent pricing and licensing options."
"It is not that expensive. There are some tools that are double the cost of PingSafe. It is good on the pricing side."
"CloudGuard is fairly priced."
"The solution’s pricing is a little bit high."
"Right now, we have licenses on 500 machines, and they are not cheap."
"Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is always known as a good solution but an expensive one. When you're using Cisco, Check Point, or Palo Alto, you know that you will pay more, but you know that it will work."
"The licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads (number of instances) within one license with no additional nor hidden charges. If you want to have 200 workloads under Dome9, then you need to take out two licenses for that. Also, it does not have any impact on cloud billing, as data is shared using the API call. This is well within the limit of free API calls provided by the cloud provider."
"I suggest that you pay attention to the product pricing because while there are no tricks, and the licensing model is transparent, the final numbers may surprise you."
"Everything in this field is very expensive."
"We have the enterprise-level license and we renew it annually because it is worth the cost."
"It's a costly solution"
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
It is cost-effective compared to other solutions in the market.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
The documentation could be better. Besides improving the documentation, obtaining a professional or partner specializ...
What do you like most about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the b...
What needs improvement with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
From an improvement perspective, I would like to create new policies in the tool, especially if it is deployed for th...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I use the solution in my company for vulnerability management, configuration management, compliance, safety handling,...
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management, Dome9, Check Point CloudGuard Workload Protection, Check Point CloudGuard Intelligence
StackRox
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Symantec, Citrix, Car and Driver, Virgin, Cloud Technology Partners
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.