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.

The licensing is easy to understand and implement, with some flexibility to accommodate dynamic environments. The combination of pricing and the ability to customize detection rules was a key factor in selecting SentinelOne.

SentinelOne offers excellent pricing and licensing options. I was able to consolidate two security vendors into one by switching to SentinelOne, and I now pay less than I did for either of them. As a cloud-native application operating exclusively within AWS, we procured SentinelOne through the AWS Marketplace. This partnership, facilitated through an EDP purchasing agreement, streamlines our procurement process, consolidates purchase records, and provides a discount on our AWS spending.

I am personally not taking care of the pricing part, but when we moved from CrowdStrike to Singularity Cloud Native Security, there were some savings. The price of CrowdStrike was quite high. Compared to that, the price of Singularity Cloud Native Security was low. Singularity Cloud Native Security 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. There should not be an extra charge for adding a subscription, and the pricing should be based on the number of servers that I am scanning.

The price depends on the extension of the solution that you want to buy. If you want to buy just EDR, the price is less. XDR is a little bit more expensive. There are going to be different add-ons for Singularity. This is important for customers because they can add some new features. They do not need to change the product. They can simply add a new feature.

Singularity Cloud Security by SentinelOne is cost-efficient.

PingSafe falls within the typical price range for cloud security platforms.

PingSafe falls somewhere in the middle price range, neither particularly cheap nor expensive.

PingSafe is affordable.

The cost for PingSafe is average when compared to other CSPM tools.

PingSafe is priced in the middle. It's better than Qualys.

I'm not aware of the exact pricing.

PingSafe is affordable.

PingSafe's primary advantage is its ability to consolidate multiple tools into a single user interface, but, beyond this convenience, it may not offer significant additional benefits to justify its price.

The tool is cost-effective. It is neither cheap nor expensive.

The tool is cost-effective.

PingSafe's pricing is good because it provides us with a solution.

PingSafe is less expensive than other options.

It is cheap.

Its pricing is constant. It has been constant over the previous year, so I am happy with it. However, price distribution can be better explained. That is the only area I am worried about. Otherwise, the pricing is very reasonable. As the cloud vendors change their pricing, PingSafe also has to change its pricing. I understand that. I am happy with it, but the split up can be better explained.

Its pricing was a little less than other providers.

Its pricing is okay. It is in line with what other providers were providing. It is not cheap. It is not expensive.

The pricing is reasonable.

The pricing is pretty good. It's comparable to or better than others on the market.

I don't have any visibility on the pricing of PingSafe.

While my understanding is there will be a price increase, so far, the pricing has been okay.

I don't have any visibility on the pricing.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. However, my understanding is that it is very economical.

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.

In some markets, PingSafe is a little on the higher side, but it's just right for us. It's a good value for the money.

We use SentinelOne's endpoint protection and PingSafe. If the 2 solutions are integrated into a package, the cost of PingSafe should be reduced. As a standalone product, PingSafe is appropriately priced according to industry standards.

PingSafe is not very expensive compared to Prisma Cloud, but it's also not that cheap. However, because of its features, it makes sense to us as a company. It's fairly priced.

PingSafe is reasonably priced, considering the value it offers to our organization. We had a few conversations with them, and they understood our posture. Initially, they offered one amount, but we got them to offer a discount that would meet their expectations. Their customer team is excellent and understanding.

I'm not familiar with PingSafe's standard pricing. While it seemed like a good value, I'm on a partnership plan that offers a discount in exchange for feedback. Therefore, I can't speak to the typical pricing.

Pricing is based on modules, which was ideal for us. We weren't interested in the platform's full capability at first. Our priority was to establish foundational practices like maintaining an asset inventory and identifying misconfigurations. We then aimed to streamline these processes. Thankfully, PingSafe's modular pricing allowed us to pay for only the features we needed, unlike Wiz. With Wiz, we would have paid for the entire platform upfront, potentially leaving us with unused features. This would have been a poor return on investment, especially considering Wiz's high cost. In essence, their pricing model wouldn't have suited our needs. Even if we had eventually used all of PingSafe's features, the initial cost would still have been lower than Wiz in the long run.

The pricing for PingSafe in India was more reasonable than other competitors.

The features included in PingSafe justify its price point. The agent-level monitoring for Kubernetes clusters is particularly valuable and could support a modest price increase.

I'm not sure how the pricing for the solution works.

PingSafe is fairly priced.

There are different pricing models for software licenses. Some models are based on the individual number of assets a user has. Others consider the number of nodes, clusters, and accounts, with different pricing for each factor. I've also seen models that use the number of deployed APIs, endpoints, agents, or users. From what I've seen, PingSafe seems similar. Their pricing appears to be based simply on the number of accounts we have, which is common for cloud-based products. This simplicity makes their pricing straightforward and potentially cost-effective.

It is not that expensive. There are some tools that are double the cost of PingSafe. It is good on the pricing side.

PingSafe is priced reasonably for our workload.

It was reasonable pricing for me. The costing model might have changed now since they have been acquired.

It's not expensive. The product is in its initial growth stages and appears more competitive compared to others. It comes in different variants, and I believe the enterprise version costs around $55 per user per year. I would rate the pricing a five, somewhere fairly moderate.