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

IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment vs SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 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

Zafran Security
Sponsored
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
27th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (6th)
IBM Guardium Vulnerability ...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
49th
Average Rating
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
6th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
109
Ranking in other categories
Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 0.4%. The mindshare of IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment is 0.5%, down from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 1.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Israel Cavazos Landini - PeerSpot reviewer
Weekly insights and risk analysis facilitate informed security decisions
I appreciate the weekly insights Zafran provides, which include critical topics for networks and IT security, allowing us to evaluate which insights apply to our environment. The organization score feature is valuable to keep the leadership team updated on how our infrastructure fares security-wise. The applicable risk level versus base risk level feature is beneficial because prior to Zafran, we only used the base risk level, but now understand that risk depends on the asset itself. Zafran is an excellent tool.
reviewer1714710 - PeerSpot reviewer
Worthwhile from the regulatory requirements and analytics perspective, but is expensive and not easy to use
We are a full security base integration and application business. We help with implementation and deployments. I used Guardium to help with a cloud migration to check and do some validation for a client's data landscape and services so that they made sure that they were all secure in overall…
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"The reporting features are good and there are many built-in reports that can be quickly configured."
"It helped with some of the regulatory requirements. It also helped with some of the security analytics and analysis. It was worthwhile from that perspective."
"The most valuable feature is that it provides a simple English recommendation on actions that you need to take once a vulnerability is discovered."
"You not only get to know about vulnerabilities and misconfigurations but also some of the actual"
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"It gives me the information I need."
"The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"PingSafe offers an intuitive user interface that lets us navigate quickly and easily."
"The Offensive Security Engine, powered by impressive AI/ML capabilities, seamlessly integrates with cloud infrastructure to analyze data and provide optimal security solutions."
"The most valuable feature is the notification system, providing real-time alerts and comparisons crucial for maintaining security."
"The most valuable feature of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is its advanced AI and machine learning capabilities, which allow it to identify and respond to threats in real time."
 

Cons

"Initially, we were somewhat concerned about the scalability of Zafran due to our large asset count and the substantial amount of information we needed to process."
"The interface could be improved by having sub-groups of tests, ultimately making the process of collecting tests faster."
"It was not as easy to use. The user-friendliness of it was somewhat lower than what I was expecting. It was also lacking in terms of the ease of the setup. There should be an automatic agent for deployment."
"Building policies is not that easy. There are some things that are turned off by default, for example, displaying values."
"The Infrastructure as Code service available in PingSafe and the services available in AWS cloud security can be merged so that we can get the security data directly from AWS cloud in PingSafe. This way, all the data related to security will be in one single place. Currently, we have to check a couple of things on PingSafe, and we have to validate that same data on the AWS Cloud to be sure. If they can collaborate like that, it will be great."
"The areas with room for improvement include the cost, which is higher compared to other security platforms. The dashboard can also be laggy."
"Implementing single sign-on requires a pre-class account feature, which is currently not available."
"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."
"We are experiencing problems with Cloud Native Security reporting."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"While SentinelOne offers robust security features, its higher cost may present a challenge for budget-conscious organizations."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"One thing not advantageous for it was that it was a little bit more expensive. I would rate it one out of five in terms of pricing."
"I would rate the cost a seven out of ten with ten being the most costly."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is costly."
"While I'm slightly out of touch with pricing, I know SentinelOne is much cheaper than other products."
"PingSafe falls within the typical price range for cloud security platforms."
"PingSafe is priced reasonably for our workload."
"The features included in PingSafe justify its price point."
"The licensing is easy to understand and implement, with some flexibility to accommodate dynamic environments."
"PingSafe is cost-effective for the amount of infrastructure we have. It's reasonable for what they offer compared to our previous solution. It's at least 25 percent to 30 percent less."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
38%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
I find that the pricing for Zafran aligns well with the comprehensive features it offers. The asset and user-based li...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
While Zafran Security is already a powerful tool, there are areas where it could be further improved to provide even ...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
Our primary use case for Zafran involves leveraging it to enhance our vulnerability risk scoring methodology. In toda...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
PingSafe
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Guardium Vulnerability Assessment vs. SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.