We performed a comparison between Aqua Cloud Security Platform and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The UI is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The offensive security feature is valuable because it publicly detects the offensive and vulnerable things present in our domain or applications. It checks any applications with public access. Some of the applications give public access to certain files or are present over a particular domain. It detects and lets us know with evidence. That is quite good. It is protecting our infrastructure quite well."
"The agentless vulnerability scanning is great."
"The real-time detection and response capabilities overall are great."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"We use Aqua Security for the container security features."
"The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and manage."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"Every other security tool we've looked is good at containers, or at Kubernetes, is good at AWS, or at instance monitoring. But nobody is good at tying all of those things together, and that's really where Threat Stack shines."
"It has been quite helpful to have the daily alerts coming to my email, as well as the Sev 1 Alerts... We just went through a SOX audit and those were pivotal."
"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."
"We like the ability of the host security module to monitor the processes running on our servers to help us monitor activity."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"There has been a measurable decrease in the meantime to remediation... because we have so many different tech verticals already collated in one place, our ability to respond is drastically different than it used to be."
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"Maybe container runtime security could be improved."
"It does not bring much threat intel from the outside world. All it does is scan. If it can also correlate things, it will be better."
"They need more experienced support personnel."
"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."
"I would like Aqua Security to look into is the development of a web security portal."
"Sometimes I got stressed with the UI."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"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 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."
"The one thing that we know they're working on, but we don't have through the tool, is the application layer. As we move to a serverless environment, with AWS Fargate or direct Lambda, that's where Threat Stack does not have the capacity to provide feed. Those are areas that it's blind to now..."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"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."
"The reports aren't very good. We've automated the report generation via the API and replaced almost all the reports that they generate for us using API calls instead."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"I would like further support of Windows endpoint agents or the introduction of support for Windows endpoint agents."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 11th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 16 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 28th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP). Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward 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". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and SUSE NeuVector, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Darktrace, AWS GuardDuty, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors and best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
