We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cloud Native Security's best feature is its ability to identify hard-coded secrets during pull request reviews."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"PingSafe released a new security graph tool that helps us identify the root issue. Other tools give you a pass/fail type of profile on all misconfigurations, and those will run into the thousands. PingSafe's graphing algorithm connects various components together and tries to identify what is severe and what is not. It can correlate various vulnerabilities and datasets to test them on the back end to pinpoint the real issue."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"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 is the ability to share resources."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The technical support is good."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"We like the ability of the host security module to monitor the processes running on our servers to help us monitor activity."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"With Threat Stack, we quickly identified some AWS accounts which had services that would potentially be exposed and were able to remediate them prior to release of products."
"The number-one feature is the monitoring of interactive sessions on our Linux machines. We run an immutable environment, so that nothing is allowed to be changed in production... We're constantly monitoring to make sure that no one is violating that. Threat Stack is what allows us to do that."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"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."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"When we get a new finding from PingSafe, I wish we could get an alert in the console, so we can work on it before we see it in the report. It would be very useful for the team that is actively working on the PingSafe platform, so we can close the issue the same day before it appears in the daily report."
"Whenever I view the processes and the process aspect, it takes a long time to load."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"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."
"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 documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"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 solution's price could be better."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"I would like further support of Windows endpoint agents or the introduction of support for Windows endpoint agents."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 31st in Container Security. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Qualys VMDR, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Darktrace, AWS GuardDuty, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Qualys VMDR and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.