We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Trend Micro Deep Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"The solution helped free other staff to work on other projects or other tasks. We basically just had to do a bunch of upfront configuring. With it, we do not have to spend as much time in the console."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"The cloud misconfiguration is the most valuable feature."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"It's helped free up staff time so that they can work on other projects."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Segmentation is the most powerful feature."
"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."
"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."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"There is a degree of set it and forget it in regards to the actual endpoints and what you can do with the console, which is nice."
"It is stable and we have not faced any challenges during the rolled out"
"The customer service/technical support for this solution is very fast."
"Trend Micro gave our security teams a certain degree of comfort by just having it in the background, as they have familiarity with the product."
"DLP, Data Loss Prevention, and the complexity of how we manage the console and how this client, or this tool, will notify us when there is something going wrong within the server and endpoint, is good."
"Aside from the basic antivirus features, there are additional features such as vulnerability protection, firewall, etc. which are helpful."
"For day-to-day efficiency, it provides a good dashboard, so our team can be active 24/7 instead of doing a lot of manual stuff. We just look at the dashboard, and it's all done."
"The most valuable feature of the product is vulnerability detection."
"We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"The resolution suggestions could be better, and the compliance features could be more customizable for Indian regulations. Overall, the compliance aspects are good. It gives us a comprehensive list, and its feedback is enough to bring us into compliance with regulations, but it doesn't give us the specific objects."
"Sometimes the Storyline ID is a bit wacky."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"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."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"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."
"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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 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."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"Installation and operations may have issues on some machines owing to their configuration of the network cards as the product is a DPI driver."
"Deep Security's most valuable features are antivirus and host intrusion detection."
"There is room for improvement with Trend Micro Deep Security, as there are instances where installations may need to be redone. There seem to be glitches when working with older Windows servers, such as those from 2003 or 2005, requiring us to uninstall and reinstall the product to resolve the issue."
"Sometimes, the product is not very stable, but it is something that depends on the infrastructure in which the tool is used."
"Sometimes the patching is a bit slow."
"Requires simplification, a fair amount of trouble shooting required."
"The tool needs to improve its subscription."
"We want to see improved authentication."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 18th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Trend Micro Deep Security is ranked 1st in Virtualization Security with 81 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Trend Micro Deep Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Micro Deep Security writes "High availability, effective VPM, and responsive support". 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 Trend Micro Deep Security is most compared with Trend Vision One Endpoint Security, CrowdStrike Falcon, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Symantec Endpoint Security and Trellix Endpoint Security.
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.