Aqua Cloud Security Platform Reviews

My main use case for Aqua Cloud Security Platform is securing the cloud environment through CNAPP, which is Cloud Native Application Protection, posture management, workload protections, and container security.

Regarding how Aqua Cloud Security Platform fits into my workflow, it absolutely provides strong runtime protection. Aqua is very strong in runtime security using behavioral monitoring and control. Controls detect anomalies beyond signature-based threats. For example, if a container suddenly starts running crypto mining or suspicious processes, Aqua flags and stops it immediately, even if the attack was not known earlier. It detects the abnormal behavior.

Another key aspect is shift-left security. It integrates security early in CI/CD pipelines, giving developers visibility before deployment. Additionally, Aqua Cloud Security Platform provides strong compliance and governance with built-in policies for compliance standards like CIS, PCI DSS, and NIST, along with continuous compliance monitoring. It also offers secrets and sensitive data protection, identifying secrets like API keys, tokens, and passwords in images and repositories to prevent accidental exposure.

For Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I can provide a specific example of how I use it for container security and workload protection. Aqua Cloud Security Platform provides the CNAPP solution, which covers end-to-end cloud environment security. Aqua provides end-to-end security across containers, Kubernetes, serverless, and cloud workloads starting from build, deployment, runtime, and compliance in one platform. During image build, Aqua scans the container image and blocks deployment if critical vulnerabilities are found. At runtime, if a container starts unusual activities, it detects and blocks it.

The best features Aqua Cloud Security Platform offers are container and Kubernetes security, runtime protection, vulnerability management, and secret detection. I also appreciate the coverage perspective, as it covers serverless security as well. This is valuable because when using serverless functions, mainly Lambda or Azure functions, we do not have much visibility on that particular aspect since it runs behind the scenes. Aqua gives good visibility and confidence to run those functions securely.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform provides end-to-end coverage and is a very good CNAPP solution which covers CSPM, cloud workload protection, DevSecOps, infrastructure-as-code scanning, serverless, and vulnerability management. These are the key and essential features with respect to the cloud security environment domain.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform has impacted my organization positively. While solutioning or deploying this cloud-native security control, I found that from day one, it started providing ROI. It is very easy to implement through API integration and started showing its strength immediately. From the posture side, it gives good visibility of the cloud environment because visibility is most essential in cloud environments. When an administrator spins up a VM, multiple things happen in the backend such as block storage, IPs, and network security groups. Across these elements, Aqua shows how the environment is structured, what resources are available, and provides asset inventory on day one.

From the CSPM perspective, I receive comprehensive visibility. From the cloud workload perspective, Aqua provides features that run in the environment, identify threats, attack chain paths, vulnerabilities, and provide remediation steps. In the DevSecOps area, it provides security starting with the shift-left approach, allowing early detection of vulnerabilities and flaws before runtime protection. Aqua also offers secret detection, compliance coverage, and infrastructure-as-code scanning.

Regarding how Aqua Cloud Security Platform can be improved, the first area is the complex initial setup. Deployment and configuration can be complex, especially in large environments that require skilled resources. For Kubernetes environments, initial onboarding and policy setup takes time. Compared to Wiz onboarding, it is not very straightforward, as I have also worked with Wiz. The UI is powerful but not very simple for new users, as navigation and dashboard can be overwhelming.

Alert noise and tuning are required because Aqua generates a large number of initial alerts that need tuning to reduce false positives. Additionally, pricing can be high depending on workload scale, especially for large Kubernetes and multi-cloud environments.

For improvements to Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I think better integration with SOAR and XDR platforms, more AI-driven prioritization, and providing simpler out-of-the-box policies would be beneficial.

I have been using Aqua Cloud Security Platform for the last five years on this cloud security platform.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform is stable.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform has good scalability because it is a SaaS platform, so I do not need to think much about scalability.

The customer support for Aqua Cloud Security Platform is good.

I did not previously use a different solution related to Aqua Cloud Security Platform. I use different solutions for different customers and implement them as required. This is not about switching from one solution to another solution in my case.

Before choosing Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I evaluated other options including Wiz, Prisma, and Prisma Cloud.

Regarding the initial setup of Aqua Cloud Security Platform, the first area needing improvement is the complex initial setup. Deployment and configuration can be complex, especially in large environments that require skilled resources. For Kubernetes environments, initial onboarding and policy setup takes time. Compared to Wiz onboarding, it is not very straightforward, as I have also worked with Wiz.

From the metrics perspective for Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I can say that faster deployment and faster vulnerability remediation reduced time to fix vulnerabilities early in the pipeline. The impact can reduce remediation effort by 40% to 60%, avoiding production-level fixes which are costlier. Breach risk detection through runtime protection plus compliance reduces the risk of attack by 30% to 40%. Tool consolidation is another aspect where replacing multiple tools such as scanners, runtime compliance tools, and others can reduce tool cost by 15% to 25%.

From the ROI perspective, Aqua Cloud Security Platform provides value from day one in terms of identifying the posture of the environment, identifying vulnerabilities, and faster remediation. Remediation effort improved by at least 40% to 60%. Breach risk reduction is significantly increased by 30% to 50%. Regarding tool consolidation, I do not need different tools, especially for the DevSecOps pipeline perspective, as one tool can suffice for scanning, runtime, and compliance functions. When consolidating tools, costs reduce around 15% to 25%.

I am not directly involved in the pricing part, but while implementing Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I have seen that pricing is quite higher, especially for large-grade enterprises.

Before choosing Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I evaluated other options including Wiz, Prisma, and Prisma Cloud.

Regarding improvements needed for Aqua Cloud Security Platform that we have not discussed yet, I do not have additional areas to suggest.

Regarding Aqua Cloud Security Platform's AI capabilities, it helps organizations manage their compliance part in terms of whatever compliance standards they have. Built-in policies for compliance standards like CIS, PCI DSS, and NIST, along with continuous compliance monitoring, are very impactful for the organization because they help during audit time. For C-level people like CISO and CEO, it gives them confidence and trust in how the organization is performing. Aqua automatically checks if Kubernetes configuration follows CIS benchmark and generates an alert and compliance report if anything is misconfigured. This is very significant.

Regarding the accuracy and reliability of output from Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I have not seen any discrepancy. The output is good overall.

My advice for others looking into using Aqua Cloud Security Platform is to use it properly and leverage all its available features. This helps to get more visibility of the cloud environment.

I rate Aqua Cloud Security Platform a seven because it has quite good features, but there are a few things that need improvement, which is applicable for each solution and Aqua is not different from that.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform's main use case is scanning for vulnerabilities and detecting vulnerabilities, which allows me to manage our CIS benchmark as well.

I use Aqua Cloud Security Platform for vulnerability scanning, particularly with the open-source tool called Trivy, which helps identify bugs in Docker images. I only need to install that software into the system and run a couple of commands. Based on those inputs, it analyzes the image package and provides suggestions on the vulnerabilities, how to fix them, the consequences, and the pros and cons. I also use Kube-bench with Aqua Cloud Security Platform to scan Kubernetes clusters for vulnerabilities, bugs, and issues at the cluster levels. Once I run the Kube-bench commands at the cluster levels, it provides detailed information on what exactly needs to be taken care of, what should be removed if an unnecessary package is present, or if something unnecessary has been allowed, such as permissions for all users. It provides all the essential information on exactly what needs to be done.

As I mentioned, I used Aqua Cloud Security Platform with Trivy, which is a great lightweight open-source tool, and Kube-bench, which follows CIS benchmarks, making it an industrial standard that can be implemented in test, UAT, production, or development environments. This use case can be integrated into CI/CD pipelines, automating tasks, generating reports, and sharing those reports with development teams for reviewing and rectifying issues, bugs, or vulnerabilities.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform offers several features, including code and supply chain security for scanning vulnerabilities, where it is a lightweight and fast scanning tool for lightweight images and serverless functions. Additionally, it provides cloud and infrastructure posture management, continuously monitoring cloud assets and infrastructure configuration to ensure compliance with organizational standards. There is also advanced runtime protection, known as ARP or CWPP, for real-time threat detection, addressing issues such as agent failures. Lastly, there are AI and generative security features involving machine learning, along with many additional security features, but these are the main ones I can identify.

As a cloud engineer and DevOps engineer, my day-to-day tasks mostly involve cloud interactions with cloud service providers. In this context, cloud security posture management scans public cloud environments such as AWS, Azure, and GCP, detecting misconfigurations. If storage, such as buckets, is exposed in public environments, it alerts me to take necessary actions. Kubernetes security posture management leverages Kube-bench and CIS benchmarks for continuous audits of Kubernetes clusters, control planes, and node configurations against the CIS benchmark. If something is missing, it alerts me and guides me on how to rectify it.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform has positively impacted my organization with a drastic reduction in vulnerability search time. Manual processes consume more time and lower productivity, but using Aqua Cloud Security Platform increases productivity and reduces time spent searching or identifying vulnerabilities. It also accelerates DevSecOps principles, automating the checks developers need without waiting for manual security sign-offs. Prior to Aqua Cloud Security Platform, development teams blamed security teams and vice versa, but Aqua Cloud Security Platform has bridged that gap, reducing tension between the two teams.

Since adopting Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I have observed around a 40 to 45 percent increase in productivity and a reduction of around 35 to 40 percent in time taken for tasks that previously required manual intervention, such as Python linting. Before, I performed manual checks line by line, but now Aqua Cloud Security Platform automates these processes, generates reports, and allows me to take immediate action.

One additional feature of Aqua Cloud Security Platform is cloud infrastructure entitlement management, which tracks human and machine identities across cloud platforms while discovering privileged accounts, unused permissions, and potential threats. It escalates alerts if something poses a real threat to the organization.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform could improve by streamlining the onboarding process and initial policy tuning to reduce the feeling of exhaustion or fatigue. Additionally, enhancing the user interface would be beneficial as tools such as Trivy scanner and Kube-bench typically operate on CLI. A user interface that integrates smoothly with CI/CD pipelines and Kubernetes clusters would be a significant improvement. Also, reporting could be clearer and more actionable, rather than presenting a massive list of open issues, which could overwhelm busy development or testing teams. Advanced documentation for enterprise-level users would also enhance the platform, making it accessible for startups or mid-sized organizations with limited budgets.

Improving the user interface would provide better visibility, especially for newcomers trying to understand Aqua Cloud Security Platform. If new users find it easier to integrate with CI/CD pipelines or Kubernetes clusters through a more straightforward interface, that would be a significant achievement.

I have been using Aqua Cloud Security Platform for around three to four years.

I take off those two points because it lacks sufficient open-source documentation; it is primarily available at the enterprise level, which could hinder users who want to learn about Aqua Cloud Security Platform without enterprise access. My overall review rating for this product is 8 out of 10.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform is primarily used for cloud-native applications, focusing on cloud identity and entitlement management and vulnerability management for containers, Kubernetes, and ISC, along with secret detection and DevSecOps.

A recent project with Aqua Cloud Security Platform addressed a security challenge related to container and Kubernetes security using runtime protection. Examples include container escape attempts, privilege escalations, reverse shell executions, malicious process wrapping, and crypto mining, which involved using Aqua runtime controls to scan the entire CNAPP.

Kubernetes security is a key focus, where Aqua provides capabilities for network segmentation, pod security controls, and service account monitoring, often stronger than Microsoft Defender for Cloud and more mature than Orca.

The best features found in Aqua Cloud Security Platform include capabilities at the domain-wise level, which include CWPP, secret detection, runtime protection, Kubernetes security, vulnerability management, and CSPM.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform positively impacted my organization by allowing deployment from code to cloud in the entire CI/CD pipeline, with excellent capabilities and recent AI application security that is useful in the DevSecOps platform.

Multi-cloud support with AWS, Azure, GCP, and software supply chain security with SBOM generation and CI/CD pipeline scanning are unique aspects that set Aqua Cloud Security Platform apart.

When compared to modern platforms like Wiz and CrowdStrike, the user interface of Aqua Cloud Security Platform feels more engineer-focused than executive-friendly, requiring improvement in user interfaces for CISO preferences.

Currently, there is a move towards agent-based solutions, and Aqua Cloud Security Platform lacks visibility on the agent side. Wiz and Orca have changed the market with agentless scanning, while Aqua Cloud Security Platform still relies on deeper runtime agents, inviting operational overhead compared to other vendors.

Risk prioritization in security graphs is a point where Aqua Cloud Security Platform is less mature than Wiz, which excels at identifying critical vulnerabilities as a single attack path.

I have been using Aqua Cloud Security Platform for around four years.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform is stable, providing good capabilities and service.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform's scalability is good, providing better services compared to DevSecOps when compared to CrowdStrike and Orca.

The customer support for Aqua Cloud Security Platform is excellent, available 24/7, and provides better solutions for any issues raised through tickets.

I did not previously use a different solution; we were using earlier open-source solutions only. We wanted to go with a paid solution to provide good capability that we can rely on.

I have seen a return on investment with Aqua Cloud Security Platform as it provides good capabilities. It is generally used for the DevSecOps pipeline to scan the entire SAST, DAST, or ISC, performing excellently in that area.

Compared to other vendors, Aqua Cloud Security Platform's pricing is good or lesser. The pricing part is acceptable, and ease of use, as well as DevSecOps integration, is excellent.

Before choosing Aqua Cloud Security Platform, I evaluated other options including CrowdStrike and Orca.

My advice for others looking into using Aqua Cloud Security Platform is that for container security, Kubernetes security, runtime protection, supply chain, or overall CNAPP, if someone wants to use it at a lesser price, this product provides good capabilities. They can proceed with this product; however, for dashboard and executive reporting, if that is specifically what you are looking for, you may want to consider other products.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform's AI capabilities provide good governance and security primarily through risk prioritization, although compared to Wiz, Prisma Cloud, and Orca, it is less competitive at the moment. In terms of supply chain securities, Aqua Cloud Security Platform is paramount in comparison to other vendors.

When it comes to the accuracy and reliability of Aqua Cloud Security Platform's AI capabilities, more work on the AI security side is required. A responsible AI part is missing, making it less valuable.

I rated this product a seven out of ten.

My main use case for Aqua Cloud Security Platform is to check mostly cloud security posture management.

A specific example of how I check cloud security posture with Aqua Cloud Security Platform is that we were basically tasked with making sure to do daily checks to ensure there were no critical vulnerabilities or anything within the environment itself of our client. If there was, we found any new vulnerabilities or CVEs that popped up and notified the client, then looked through their environment to see if anything was found.

That covers my main use case with Aqua Cloud Security Platform.

The best features Aqua Cloud Security Platform offers include a good way for checking vulnerabilities within the cloud of our client's cloud infrastructure.

Regarding how Aqua Cloud Security Platform helps with checking vulnerabilities, they had some vulnerability dashboards for going into each vulnerability that was found in order to find out which specific cloud assets were impacted. Mostly it was for the cloud security posture management side of things.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform has positively impacted my organization by helping with decreasing the number of compliancy issues with the company that we were working on. We used it to help them figure out what CVEs or cloud security posture management issues that they should be taking care of first and helped show which issues were most concerning and work our way through the most critical ones.

Prioritizing those issues with Aqua Cloud Security Platform certainly helped reduce the risks that they were impacting their environment. It helps save a little bit of time for determining which aspects the client needed to focus on first before moving on to lower priority tasks.

Regarding the features of Aqua Cloud Security Platform, the GUI itself would sometimes be a little slow, but other than that, I liked everything else.

Regarding how Aqua Cloud Security Platform can be improved, I wish it had better application speeds and responsiveness. When I used it on the client that I had a few years ago, we ran into some issues where it would not load properly. Those issues might have been fixed by now.

I have been using Aqua Cloud Security Platform for roughly a year, give or take. This was back when I was working at IBM. We were using it for one of our clients.

When I used Aqua Cloud Security Platform several years ago, it was fairly reliable with some stability issues.

Aqua Cloud Security Platform did not seem to have any issues with scaling. That being said, when we were working for our client, there was not really a whole lot of growth. There was a little bit but not a large amount, but it did seem to work fine.

I believe I only had one or two tickets open with customer support while I was working on Aqua Cloud Security Platform and everything seemed fine and quick.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer support for Aqua Cloud Security Platform a ten out of ten.

I did not use any previous solution with this client. I am pretty sure this client always had Aqua security.

There was definitely some time saved with Aqua Cloud Security Platform. The ability to quickly go through and find out what needed to be done allowed us to quickly put reports together to present to the client.

I did not evaluate any other options for this client. It was just for Aqua Cloud Security Platform.

I rate Aqua Cloud Security Platform a seven out of ten.

I chose a seven for Aqua Cloud Security Platform because it is very useful. It allows us to be very convenient. However, there were some issues such as the responsiveness of the GUI and some glitches a few times.

When I had used Aqua Cloud Security Platform last, they did not really have much in the way of AI capabilities, but it really did have some good governance and security features.

I never really had to do much with the AI capabilities of Aqua Cloud Security Platform. I never really messed with it as I had used it several years ago.

I would advise others looking into using Aqua Cloud Security Platform to check around at other platforms as well and compare to see what your needs are compared to what everything else offers.

I do not have any additional thoughts about Aqua Cloud Security Platform before we wrap up.

I have been testing various solutions to ensure which one is the best fit to protect data, applications, and infrastructure in cloud environments. We are distributors in Turkey, focusing on promoting cost-effective security solutions in the market. When engaging with enterprise clients, particularly in the financial sector such as banks, I emphasize the importance of robust security measures. During customer visits, they express a keen interest in technical support and want demonstrations of software source code management, security support for software chains, and workflow protection.

The most crucial aspect is runtime protection, specifically image scanning before preproduction and deployment. Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment. This feature ensures that customers can identify any potential issues with the image, such as misconfigurations or vulnerabilities, before integrating it into their workloads and infrastructure. In their source pipeline, companies can identify issues before deploying changes. This is crucial because customers prefer resolving any problems or misconfigurations before the deployment process. Software change security, including GSPM Cloud, is a key feature customers seek in their infrastructure.

There's room for improvement, particularly in management capabilities as it may not be comprehensive enough for all customers, and it has been lacking in the realm of cloud security posture management. Another challenge lies in the difficulty and complexity of the installation process. Deploying core components is not straightforward; it poses challenges that need to be addressed.

I have been using it for eight months.

I would rate its stability capabilities seven out of ten. Upon opening the dashboards and navigating to VM, there are instances where I can't see the information.

It excels in scalability, and it stands out as a particularly flexible and complex solution. This flexibility contributes to its superior scalability compared to other solutions like Prisma Cloud, which is notably less scalable. I would rate it eight out of ten.

The technical support is highly responsive and exceptionally helpful. When I report an issue, they address it promptly and efficiently. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup is complex.

The deployment time is quite lengthy. For instance, if you're integrating into the supply chain, the process demands more time, potentially spanning several days. Installing components like source code management and workflow protection is particularly challenging. This difficulty is intertwined with the infrastructure, determining how many workloads can be accommodated. In a smaller environment, installation might be feasible, say, between two to three hosts. However, challenges persist, such as the inability to install GitHub due to the absence of a connector. Despite efforts, connecting with other platforms like Scenic proves troublesome, unlike the seamless connection experience with NetApp.

It comes at a reasonable cost. When compared to Prisma Cloud, it is more budget-friendly.

This is an excellent solution, particularly for countries with stringent regulations like Turkey, Vietnam, and Russia. In these regions, high-level enterprise customers, driven by regulatory constraints, often refrain from using cloud accounts such as AWS and Google Cloud. Aqua provides a fulfilling on-premises solution, which is highly valuable. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We did very little with Aqua, basically. We only used Aqua for the image scanning and document scanning and that's it. Since I was working on a DevSecOps project, I was asked to find how complicated it was comparatively, for example, which is more complicated, whether the Aqua or Prisma, and how fast these things could be churned out or integrated into an existing pipeline, or when you create a new pipeline, how fast these things work. I had to experiment with these things.

In our scenario, we were creating pipelines for Infrastructure as Code. Our pipeline would be doing the scanning for all infrastructure code. In that code, if any image is mentioned, we would pick them up, we would scan them, and that's where we'll be using Aqua or Prisma. We have created items with both of those. One of the pipelines which had Aqua would be scanning and finding the vulnerabilities inside the image.

The image security and image scanning were quite easy compared to Prisma. The solution was very user-friendly.

It is easy to set up. 

It's stable.

The documentation was robust.

It's easy to set up. 

I don't recall coming across any missing features. 

It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing. That was from the interface side, the application from which we logged into Aqua. That needs a bit of improving. The admin was a bit confusing. 

I've used the solution for a couple of months, maybe. 

The stability is good. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

I did not try to scale the solution. 

We had 20 to 30 people on the solution. 

In my team, we had five members using it - the DevSecOps team. We were on the integration side of it. There might have been two to three project teams, basically, who used to used the pipelines, which we created for them.

We did not use support. We never came across any issues. 

I was working for Computer Software Corporation, CSC corporation, as a contract employee. There, we were asked to do a research on various cloud security applications. That's where we came in contact with Aqua. We were trying to do apple to apple comparison of Prisma and Aqua.

We felt Aqua is good and we even recommended Aqua to be used - rather than Prisma.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

If it is deployed from scratch, the documentation is pretty straightforward. We just followed the steps and we were able to do it. There were no unexpected bugs or any other issues we faced. Everything was quite straightforward.

I'd rate the solution four out of five in terms of the initial setup. 

Maintenance was taken care. Maintenance was good there. It doesn't need any more effort. What we used was the latest one, a stable version, and since we were dealing with a corporate organization, we wanted stable versions to be always tested. 

We did the implementation in-house.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. I cannot speak of the exact costs. The company already had a licensed version. 

We were working with the latest version of the solution. 

We had a cloud dashboard to see our stuff, basically. We used it on-prem; however, once the scanning is done, the results would be posted on that platform. That's where we used to go and see the information.

It's fast to implement and straightforward. It works for all brackets. I'd recommend it to others. 

I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

The solution is used mainly to scan public clouds or containers.

It can be used on demand. For example, when we go through the DevOps lifecycle, containers can be brought in based on demand for some use cases. We often need application onboarding and application changes. The containers do pop up based on the user story that has been defined. Therefore, we have on-demand scanning of those, and we utilize Aqua Security scan to handle that task.

The container scanning is very helpful. It's the prime use case that we have. The scanning protects against container vulnerabilities.

The solution is stable.

From what I understand, the initial setup is simple. 

The solution appears to be scaling in terms of on-demand scanning.

I have not witnessed any shortcomings in terms of the product's usability.

The solution could improve user-friendliness.

I've been working with the solution for a few years. 

I've seen that it is stable and reliable. I haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I haven't tried to scale the solution. I'm not sure from a pricing perspective if it would be easy to scale. However, as a cloud solution, and the on-demand scanning capabilities, it is fairly scalable.

I've never dealt with technical support.

While the process does seem to be straightforward, I have not personally implemented the solution.

I don't handle pricing. That is being monitored by another team.

We've previously recommended this solution to our customers. 

We are a service company. If a customer we are servicing, has specific requirements and this solution fits with them, we would suggest it.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Generally, we are using the product for container security, and we have several items related to containers. For example, one-time protection and zero-day attacks.

I have different kinds of products, and Aqua is not limited to containers only. It's also helping to secure operations. It's a very good product from an environmental perspective. There are actually a lot of things you can do. It's very flexible.

The solution can scale.

It is flexible.

Support is very helpful.

Sometimes I got stressed with the UI. It's not a problem, it's just the theme while using the 5.0 version is different from the current version 6.0. 

It could have more security prospects or even offer some kind of add-on for security. 

I'd like to see the IaC vulnerabilities also. We'd like to do vulnerability scans around it. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There aren't any bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

You can scale up or down. Our architecture is about to upgrade. We're just waiting on the process now. While it can scale, users should also consider the billing and costs if they decide to expand. We do tend to have all of our users on it, however, for the past month and a half has not been working as we work to transfer versions and update architecture. 

Support has been fine overall. If I have concerns, they help me one on one. Often in one call, we can have any issue sorted. They are knowledgeable and help ensure everything gets resolved nicely.

Positive

Initially, we had some issues. There were problems with Microsoft and AI. In the latest Aqua release, we did a multi-cloud deployment, and we coordinated the cloud and the migration. 

There are a couple of components to contend with. For example, there's the Aqua gateway. It's fine to work with. However, it's hard to have control. 

It's not overly complex. It just really depends on the environment. Therefore, it could be easy, or a little more complicated. 

Mostly, my experience was pretty good. I'd rate it a 4.5 out of five in terms of ease of setup.

The solution is competitively priced.

I'm not clear on the exact pricing, and I don't deal with that aspect directly.

We looked into other options. There's lots of competition out there. There is NGINX, for example, or we can do container security via AWS or GCP. However, we have a hybrid environment, and Aqua accommodates us in that sense. 

There are other players on the market who can give customers similar options to improve security. However, Aqua is good and very competitive in the market.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The most valuable feature is the on-demand patching. There are times when vulnerabilities don't have available fixes, and Aqua Security allows it to pass the vulnerability in real-time while the fix is being developed.

Their sandboxing service is also really good. When we download an open source tool, we can run it in a sandbox environment and see if there are any back holes or trap doors in the code. However, we don't like that their services are in the US.

Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting. It provides all the open issues, but no actionable solution is provided. There's no intelligence behind the reporting, so that can be improved. Also, it could be a cheaper solution. However, it is costly because it's a very small market and the first of its kind.

Regarding additional features, we would like to see better log ingestion. For example, if we have an EDR or a SOC, we want the SOC, the cloud and the container security to interact better. That means the cloud should have better ingestion of logs and SOC logs and be able to give more heuristic analysis of security issues rather than just ones and zeros.

The licensing model could be better because it has a scalable container environment. If we're working in a small environment, it is fine, but if we have a large environment, we can't predict the traffic for the day. If the marketing team decides to launch a campaign with high traffic, then we won't have licenses available for all our ports. Therefore, the licensing model needs to be rethought, and we can't have per-port licenses because ports can increase.

We have been using this solution for over a year. It is a managed service and deployed on cloud.

It is a good solution and is stable. Their services are good, and they provide good responses. If there are business-related issues, they will contact you and answer your questions on priority.

Swisslog and Aqua Security work with a very similar pricing model as they have an agent deployed in a cluster that covers all the containers or namespaces in that cluster. Now, if clusters are also scalable, which is the case in containers, the number of licenses consumed increases.

Aqua Security charges per license. So we usually take their licenses in our testing and QA environment. However, we limit it in the production environment because, in QA testing, our environment expands and collapses because developers are testing. So in production, we can forecast how many licenses we may need in the future.

However, if there is no production system, we cannot account for the number of fraud and containers and we will have to pay through the roof for these solutions because they charge for containers per port for every single agent they deploy.

About 20 to 30 people use Aqua Security from the DevOps and security team. They use the solution because they handle the infrastructure and security.

The technical support is good, and they reply on time.

The initial setup was easy.

I rate the price a four out of ten, with one being a high price and ten being a reasonable price. It is a costly solution.

Aqua Security is an on-demand service. Swisslog just launched a product, but it is not as good as Aqua Security in terms of accuracy. Swisslog is integrated with the package and with Aqua Security, you need to pay more for the first scan.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this product for all of our network security.

The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization.

We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers.

The runtime security element of this solution could also be improved, in order for it to be more universally usable.

We have been using this solution for five or six years.

We have found this solution to be stable.

Scalability isn't an issue with this solution.

Before choosing this solution we also evaluated Snyk.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.