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

Qualys VMDR vs Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 5, 2025

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
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
103
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (3rd)
Qualys VMDR
Ranking in Container Security
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
92
Ranking in other categories
IT Asset Management (4th), Vulnerability Management (2nd), Configuration Management Databases (2nd), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (3rd)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Ranking in Container Security
19th
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 January 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 2.3%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys VMDR is 2.8%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.8%, down from 3.4% 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.
Harold Jensen - PeerSpot reviewer
Good visibility but expensive and needs better support
Support: It's often overseas and often following a script, basically asking us to redo what we opened the case with. Multiple APIs: There seems to be a lack of easy onboarding into Qualys. We had to use manual inputs and some API calls to get items in place. Dashboard: It is very rudimentary with very little customization. The Qualys Scripting Language (QSL) works differently in different Qualys modules, so when you get it working in one area you have to modify the syntax in others. User account management: We often have to give users more rights than needed just to give them what they need. Integration with the various Qualys Modules: You can tell the UI is different based on of the different teams that created them. QSL syntax same in all modules Responsiveness of some of the components: They time out, you get a blank screen, etc. Backend updates between the various modules: You update connectors and information takes a few minutes to show in VMDR or Global Asset View Connectors: Connectors have a throttling issue with AWS which causes them to frequently fail unless you manually run them again.
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

"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"Atlas security graph is pretty cool. It maps out relationships between components on AWS, like load balancers and servers. This helps visualize potential attack paths and even suggests attack paths a malicious actor might take."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security has significantly improved our risk posture."
"The visibility PingSafe provides into the Cloud environment is a valuable feature."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"PingSafe stands out for its user-friendly interface and intuitive software, making it easy to navigate and use."
"The key strength of Singularity Cloud Security lies in its ability to pinpoint vulnerabilities in our cloud accounts and identify suspicious activity that warrants further investigation."
"Overall, the solution is highly rated because of its simplicity and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is automation."
"Tech support is helpful."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the external channel."
"The features that are most valuable are the identification, scan features, and the identification of vulnerabilities."
"I like Qualys because it is a very complete product, more so than Tenable."
"The initial setup was good. We didn't have any problems with it."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability detection and the scanning capability to enable identification of vulnerabilities across our network."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The technical support is good."
"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 beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
 

Cons

"A beneficial improvement for PingSafe would be integration with Jira, allowing for a more streamlined ticketing system."
"For SentinelOne, improvements could be made in managing Internet dependency as cloud-based operations can pose challenges in environments with limited connectivity."
"I believe the UI/UX updates for SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security have room for improvement."
"The documentation that I use for the initial setup can be more detailed or written in a more user-friendly language to avoid troubles."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"Once all components, including the cloud piece and container runtime piece, integrate further and incorporate an AI layer for better comprehension, it will greatly enhance the utility of Singularity Cloud Security."
"We had a glitch in PingSafe where it fed us false positives in the past."
"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."
"It's quite complex on the way it is set up, so it takes a fair bit of time in order to get your head around it in order to deploy it. Once you've deployed it, then you're never confident on the versions of the browsers and the SSL certificates, etc. You have to always go back into Qualys and check."
"The reporting needs improvement. It should generate much more stuff like field reports."
"The IoT scan is not great."
"Integration could be better. When you think about scanning, it's not used just with this product alone but with other Qualys products. If you think about the bundle, the product itself is good. But integration with other products and packages has space for improvement. They should also offer a better price for bundles."
"The user interface (UI) is quite complicated."
"Finding things in management can be quite difficult."
"One area for improvement is the simplification of the process to ignore certain vulnerabilities on specific devices."
"If AI features were integrated, it could enhance the capabilities significantly."
"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"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 testing process could be improved."
"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 solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Singularity Cloud Security by SentinelOne is cost-efficient."
"It is cheap."
"SentinelOne is quite costly compared to other security platforms."
"It is not that expensive. There are some tools that are double the cost of PingSafe. It is good on the pricing side."
"PingSafe's pricing is good because it provides us with a solution."
"As a partner, we receive a discount on the licenses."
"While SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security offers robust protection, its high cost may be prohibitive for small and medium-sized businesses."
"The cost for PingSafe is average when compared to other CSPM tools."
"The solution is reasonably priced for the value it provides."
"The pricing is very competitive."
"The price is very reasonable."
"Qualys VM is better suited for medium to large companies because the price can be too much for smaller customers."
"It is more expensive than other products on the market."
"Qualys VM is quite expensive. It's a subscription-based license, and it's yearly. Right now, it's open for me, and I don't have any limitations or caps on the licenses. They are seeing if the product is viable for 4500 users. I can add as much as I want, and at the end of the subscription, they'll let me know how many licenses were actually used and bill me accordingly. On a scale from one to five, I would give their pricing a three. It's still expensive."
"Qualys is cheaper and more affordable than other solutions."
"The product is more expensive than that of any other vendor."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the 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."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"It's a costly solution"
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Educational Organization
36%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
 

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?
SentinelOne is relatively cheap. If ten is the most expensive, I would rate it a seven.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
The areas with room for improvement include the cost, which is higher compared to other security platforms. The dashb...
What is your primary use case for Qualys VM?
Qualys VM is used for vulnerability scans for the internet and applications using application exchange. There are man...
What do you like most about Qualys VMDR?
I like that we have many scanners and channels that don't overload. It helps us scan and track easily. Also, the tagg...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qualys VMDR?
For smaller enterprises, the pricing is on the pricier side. However, for larger enterprises, it's considered okay. I...
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
Qualys VM, QualysGuard VM, Qualys Asset Inventory, Qualys Container Security, Qualys Virtual Scanner Appliance
StackRox
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Agrokor Group, American Specialty Health, American State Bank, Arval, Life:), Axway, Bank of the West, Blueport Commerce, BSkyB, Brinks, CaixaBank, Cartagena, Catholic Health System, CEC Bank, Cegedim, CIGNA, Clickability, Colby-Sawyer College, Commercial Bank of Dubai, University of Utah, eBay Inc., ING Singapore, National Theatre, OTP Bank, Sodexo, WebEx
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Qualys VMDR vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.