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

CoreOS Clair 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)
CoreOS Clair
Ranking in Container Security
27th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 CoreOS Clair is 0.5%, down from 0.5% 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.
Felipe Giffu - PeerSpot reviewer
An operational system, similar to Linux where you can run your applications inside containers
With CoreOS, you can run your applications inside containers. For example, if you have an application that needs to run on Linux, you can create and install a container. However, it's important to note that you don't install CoreOS inside a container; CoreOS is the host operating system that manages containers. When you mentioned using Nacula as part of your CI/CD pipeline, it means your application is deployed and managed automatically through the CI/CD process. Containers are used to deploy your application within this pipeline, but CoreOS does not run inside these containers. Instead, CoreOS is the base operating system that supports and manages these containers.
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

"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"The most valuable feature is the notification system, providing real-time alerts and comparisons crucial for maintaining security."
"The remediation process is good."
"Singularity Cloud Workload Security provides us with better security detection and more visibility. It is another resource that we can use to detect vulnerabilities in our company's systems. For example, it can help us detect new file processes that we are not familiar with, which could be used by attackers to exploit our systems. Singularity Cloud Workload Security can also help us diagnose and analyze data to determine whether it is malicious or not. Singularity Cloud Workload Security is like another pair of eyes that can help us protect our systems from cyberattacks."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"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."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"CoreOS Clair's best feature is detection accuracy."
"With CoreOS, you can run your applications inside containers. For example, if you have an application that needs to run on Linux, you can create and install a container. However, it's important to note that you don't install CoreOS inside a container; CoreOS is the host operating system that manages containers."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"The technical support is good."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
 

Cons

"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"I would like additional integrations."
"In the Analytics section, there is a tab for showing the severity of open issues by day. There are three options: by week, by month, and for more than thirty days. However, despite being aware of many issues open for more than thirty days, it shows no data available."
"To enhance the notification system's efficiency, resolved issues should be promptly removed from the portal."
"The SentinelOne customer support needs improvement, as they are sometimes late in responding, which is critical in a production issue."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"An area for improvement is that CoreOS Clair doesn't provide information about the location of vulnerabilities it detects."
"It can be improved in its support response. They usually take up to seven days to resolve the issue."
"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 support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The testing process could be improved."
"I do see that some features associated with the IAST part are not included in the tool, making it an area where improvements are required."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is cost-effective."
"Their pricing appears to be based simply on the number of accounts we have, which is common for cloud-based products."
"The features included in PingSafe justify its price point."
"The licensing is easy to understand and implement, with some flexibility to accommodate dynamic environments."
"It is cost-effective compared to other solutions in the market."
"It was reasonable pricing for me."
"It is a little expensive. I would rate it a four out of ten for pricing."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is costly."
"CoreOS Clair is open-source and free of charge."
"It's a costly solution"
"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."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CoreOS Clair?
If you work with CoreOS or OpenShift, you don't need to pay for CoreOS separately. When you pay for OpenShift, you ge...
What needs improvement with CoreOS Clair?
It can be improved in its support response. They usually take up to seven days to resolve the issue.
What is your primary use case for CoreOS Clair?
We use the tool to manage and secure the event file system. CoreOS Clair is an operational system that is very simila...
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
No data available
StackRox
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
eBay, Veritas, Verizon, SalesForce
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about CoreOS Clair vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,716 professionals have used our research since 2012.