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

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs SUSE NeuVector comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Container Security
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.0
Number of Reviews
99
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)
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
SUSE NeuVector
Ranking in Container Security
21st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 2.1%, up from 0.8% 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. The mindshare of SUSE NeuVector is 3.1%, down from 3.2% 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.
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.
Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Good value for money; great for policy management
Our model of deployment for this solution is on-premises. For people looking into this solution and trying to use it for the first time, I'd say make your life easier by using the SUSE product as well on top of your community scale stack. That makes your integration points a lot easier and smoother. I would also say during your initial setup, make sure that your clusters are already in terms of the capabilities with the version required. I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that what they offer is solid, but they could expand their service and add more features just to make more things integrated into an enterprise itself.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The visibility PingSafe provides into the Cloud environment is a valuable feature."
"It integrates very well. We sell different products from different vendors. We know that the SentinelOne Singularity platform can be integrated with several different solutions from different vendors."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"It's positively affected the communication between cloud security, application developers, and AppSec teams."
"The most valuable features are automated threat response, AI detection, and static and dynamic detection."
"Cloud Security has provided a single view to observe all workloads, prioritization for handling cloud assets, and reduced noise by distinguishing false positives effectively."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"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."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"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."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
 

Cons

"It would be really helpful if the solution improves its agent deployment process."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"I would like PingSafe to add real-time detection of vulnerabilities and cloud misconfigurations."
"In terms of ease of use, initially, it is a bit confusing to navigate around, but once you get used to it, it becomes easier."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"For vulnerabilities, they are showing CVE ID. The naming convention should be better so that it indicates the container where a vulnerability is present. Currently, they are only showing CVE ID, but the same CVE ID might be present in multiple containers. We would like to have the container name so that we can easily fix the issue."
"Customized queries should be made easier to improve PingSafe."
"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 solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The testing process could 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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"Using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features between two clusters and could be improved."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While I'm slightly out of touch with pricing, I know SentinelOne is much cheaper than other products."
"PingSafe is affordable."
"PingSafe is fairly priced."
"The pricing for PingSafe in India was more reasonable than other competitors."
"Its pricing was a little less than other providers."
"I am not involved in the pricing, but it is cost-effective."
"Its pricing is okay. It is in line with what other providers were providing. It is not cheap. It is not expensive."
"I am personally not taking care of the pricing part, but when we moved from CrowdStrike to PingSafe, there were some savings. The price of CrowdStrike was quite high. Compared to that, the price of PingSafe was low. PingSafe is charging based on the subscription model. If I want to add an AWS subscription, I need to pay more. It should not be based on subscription. It should be based on the number of servers that I am scanning."
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"It's a costly solution"
"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."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
5%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
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 provided competitive pricing compared to other vendors, and we are satisfied with the deal.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
To enhance the notification system's efficiency, resolved issues should be promptly removed from the portal. Currentl...
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,...
What do you like most about NeuVector?
The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NeuVector?
SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution. You have to pay for the support.
What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node por...
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
StackRox
NeuVector
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. SUSE NeuVector and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
823,795 professionals have used our research since 2012.