Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs GitGuardian Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 2, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Aqua Cloud Security Platform
Ranking in Software Supply Chain Security
17th
Ranking in DevSecOps
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Cloud and Data Center Security (19th), Container Security (24th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (22nd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (19th)
GitGuardian Platform
Ranking in Software Supply Chain Security
5th
Ranking in DevSecOps
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (8th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (4th), Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (8th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (5th), Non-Human Identity Management (NHIM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Software Supply Chain Security category, the mindshare of Aqua Cloud Security Platform is 2.9%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GitGuardian Platform is 2.9%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Software Supply Chain Security Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
GitGuardian Platform2.9%
Aqua Cloud Security Platform2.9%
Other94.2%
Software Supply Chain Security
 

Featured Reviews

Burak AKCAGUN - PeerSpot reviewer
Business Development Manager at Axoft Ukraine
A robust and cost-effective solution, excelling in scalability, on-premises support, and responsive technical support, making it well-suited for enterprises navigating stringent regulatory environment
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.
Ney Roman - PeerSpot reviewer
DevOps Engineer at Deuna App
Facilitates efficient secret management and improves development processes
Regarding the exceptions in GitGuardian Platform, we know that within the platform we have a way to accept a path or a directory from a repository, but it is not that visible at the very beginning. You have to figure out where to search for it, and once you have it, it is really good, but it is not that visible at the beginning. This should be made more exposed. The documentation could be better because it was not that comprehensively documented. When we started working with GitGuardian Platform, it was difficult to find some specific use cases, and we were not aware of that. It might have improved now, but at that time, it was not something we would recommend.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner."
"We use Aqua Security for the container security features."
"Support is very helpful."
"Aqua Security allowed us to gain visibility into the vulnerabilities that were present in the container images, that were being rolled out, the amount of risk that we were introducing to the platform, and provided us a look into the container environment by introducing access control mechanisms. In addition, when it came to runtime-level policies, we could restrict container access to resources in our environment, such as network-level or other application-level access."
"The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and manage."
"Valuable features include the ability to connect it to our Docker Hub where our images are stored, good integration with Slack, and the connection to the CV, to easily see which CVs are on each image."
"The most valuable feature is the general incident reporting system."
"The most valuable feature of GitGuardian is that it finds tokens and passwords. That's why we need this tool. It minimizes the possibility of security violations that we cannot find on our own."
"Presently, we find the pre-commit hooks more useful."
"GitGuardian Platform has helped save significant time for the security team by eliminating the need to seek out development teams and work with them on exposed secrets, as much of this is now handled proactively."
"One thing I really like about it is the fact that we can add search words or specific payloads inside the tool, and GitGuardian will look into GitHub and alert us if any of these words is found in a repository... With this capability in the tool, we have good surveillance over our potential blind spots."
"The entire GitGuardian solution is valuable. The product is doing its job and showing us many things. We get many false positives, but the ability to automatically display potential leaks when developers commit is valuable. The dashboards show you recent and historical commits, and we have a full scan that shows historical leaked secrets."
"What is particularly helpful is that having GitGuardian show that the code failed a check enables us to automatically pass the resolution to the author. We don't have to rely on the reviewer to assign it back to him or her. Letting the authors solve their own problems before they get to the reviewer has significantly improved visibility and reduced the remediation time from multiple days to minutes or hours. Given how time-consuming code reviews can be, it saves some of our more scarce resources."
"GitGuardian Internal Monitoring has helped increase our secrets detection rate by several orders of magnitude. This is a hard metric to get. For example, if we knew what our secrets were and where they were, we wouldn't need GitGuardian or these types of solutions. There could be a million more secrets that GitGuardian doesn't detect, but it is basically impossible to find them by searching for them."
 

Cons

"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"In the next release, Aqua Security should add the ability to automatically send reports to customers."
"It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"They want to release improvements to their product to work with other servers because now there are more focused on the Kubernetes environment. They need to improve the normal servers. I would like to have more options."
"There is room for improvement in its integration for bug-tracking. It should be more direct. They have invested a lot in user management, but they need to invest in integrations. That is a real lack."
"The analytics in GitGuardian Platform have a significant opportunity to better reflect the value provided to security teams and demonstrate actual activity occurring."
"Right now, we are waiting for improvement in the RBAC support for GitGuardian."
"GitGuardian could have more detailed information on what software engineers can do. It only provides some highly generic feedback when a secret is detected. They should have outside documentation. We send this to our software engineers, who are still doing the commits. It's the wrong way to work, but they are accustomed to doing it this way. When they go into that ticket, they see a few instructions that might be confusing. If I see a leaked secret committed two years ago, it's not enough to undo that commit. I need to go in there, change all my code to utilize GitHub secrets, and go on AWS to validate my key."
"We have been somewhat confused by the dashboard at times."
"An area for improvement is the front end for incidents. The user experience in this area could be much better."
"One of our current challenges is that the GitGuardian platform identifies encrypted secrets and statements as sensitive information even though they're secured."
"For some repositories, there are a lot of incidents. For example, one repository says 255 occurrences, so I assume these are 255 alerts and nobody is doing anything about them. These could be false positives. However, I cannot assess it correctly, because I haven't been closing these false positives myself. From the dashboard, I can see that for some of the repositories, there have been a lot of closing of these occurrences, so I would assume there are a lot of false positives. A ballpark estimate would be 60% being false positives. One of the arguments from the developers against this tool is the number of false positives."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Dealing with licensing costs isn't my responsibility, but I know that the licenses don't depend on the number of users, but instead are priced according to your workload."
"The pricing of this solution could be improved."
"They were reasonable with their pricing. They were pretty down-to-earth about the way they pitched their product and the way they tried to close the deal. They were one of the rare companies that approached the whole valuation in a way that made sense for our company, for our needs, and for their own requirements as well... They will accommodate your needs if they are able to understand them and they're stated clearly."
"It comes at a reasonable cost."
"Aqua Security is not cheap, and it's not very expensive, such as Splunk, they are in the middle."
"With GitGuardian, we didn't need any middlemen."
"We don't have a huge number of users, but its yearly rate was quite reasonable when compared to other per-seat solutions that we looked at... Having a free plan for a small number of users was really great. If you're a small team, I don't see why you wouldn't want to get started with it."
"It's a bit expensive, but it works well. You get what you pay for."
"The pricing and licensing are fair. It isn't very expensive and it's good value."
"It's fairly priced, as it performs a lot of analysis and is a valuable tool."
"The internal side is cheap per user. It is annual pricing based on the number of users."
"You get what you pay for. It's one of the more expensive solutions, but it is very good, and the low false positive rate is a really appealing factor."
"GitGuardian is on the pricier side."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Supply Chain Security solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
9%
Government
16%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise10
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business10
Midsize Enterprise9
Large Enterprise13
 

Questions from the Community

What do you think of Aqua Security vs Prisma Cloud?
Aqua Security is easy to use and very manageable. Its main focus is on Kubernetes and Docker. Security is a very valuable feature and their speed of integration is very good. The initial setup was ...
What do you like most about GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's also worth mentioning that GitGuardian is unique because they have a free tier that we've been using for the first twelve months. It provides full functionality for smaller teams. We're a smal...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
It's competitively priced compared to others. Overall, the secret detection sector is expensive, but we are happy with the value we get.
What needs improvement with GitGuardian Internal Monitoring ?
GitGuardian Platform does what it is designed to do, but it still generates many false positives. We utilize the automated playbooks from GitGuardian Platform, and we are enhancing them. We will pr...
 

Also Known As

Aqua Security Platform, CloudSploit, Argon
GitGuardian Internal Monitoring, GitGuardian Public Monitoring
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

HPE Salesforce Telstra Ellie Mae Cathay Pacific HomeAway
Widely adopted by developer communities, GitGuardian is used by over 600 thousand developers and leading companies, including Snowflake, Orange, Iress, Mirantis, Maven Wave, ING, BASF, and Bouygues Telecom.
Find out what your peers are saying about Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. GitGuardian Platform and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.