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

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 16, 2024

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

Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP
Ranking in Container Security
10th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
72
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (9th), Cloud and Data Center Security (9th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (5th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (5th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (5th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (6th), Compliance Management (6th)
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Ranking in Container Security
16th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is 1.9%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.1%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Bart Coddens - PeerSpot reviewer
Evolved cloud security with active monitoring but needs interface consistency
The user interface needs work. Sometimes, it is a transition from the old tool to the new CNAPP Two that I currently have, and remnants of the old environment can still be detected. I require consistency in the user interface to ensure everything is streamlined into the same look and feel. More work is needed in fine-tuning the threat data towards your CSPM and activity logs, aligning them with business intelligence, which requires a cohesive console interface. My assessment of CloudGuard CDRs in intrusion detection and threat hunting capabilities is that it still needs some work. All the threat data that comes in, you need to fine tune it a bit.
Daniel Stevens - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers easy management and container connection with HTTPS, but the support needs to improve
I have experience with the solution's setup in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and our company has assisted in the development of a cluster in a research department, but we didn't start from scratch because we have IT professionals who have installed Kubernetes across 12 nodes of a cluster and a new environment can be created for a new platform. I also had another setup experience of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes in Portugal where I had to implement the solution in a cluster of 22 computer servers, which was completed with assistance from the IT department of the company. The initial setup process of the solution can be considered as difficult. The setup process involves using the permissions, subnets and range of IPs, which makes it complex. Deploying Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes takes around eight to ten hours for new clusters. The solution's deployment can be divided into three parts. The first part involves OpenStack, where the cluster's resources need to be identified. The second part involves virtualizing assets and identifying other physical assets, for which OpenStack, Kubernetes, or OpenShift are used. The third part of the deployment involves dividing the networks into subnetworks and implementing automation to deploy the microservices using Helm. The number of professionals required for the solution's deployment depends upon the presence of automated scripts. Ideally, two or three professionals are required to set up Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"This product provides a really nice visualization of the infrastructure, including network topology, firewalls, etc."
"The various CNAPP modules have granted more visibility of our cloud applications to our system engineers and developers."
"Most of the features are pretty valuable, whether that's a description of the attacks or the attack graph showing the vulnerabilities. If a single tool does all this work, the value is centralizing all these functions on a single tool. These are the cloud-native applications we talk about — containers, Kubernetes, and cloud infrastructure — and all those things are the primary focus of the CNAPP solution."
"The platform's full visibility and control across many cloud environments allows us to effectively monitor the security posture, uncover vulnerabilities, and consistently enforce security standards."
"It presents a real-time database that is always updated."
"The most valuable feature is the CloudBots for auto-remediation of security findings."
"Alerts of cloud activity happening across all accounts is helpful."
"Dome9 wraps our FTP infrastructure with its network security configurations, and this also gives us the ability to monitor FTP activity."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"It is easy to install and manage."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
 

Cons

"Compliance checks on cloud resources against various industry standards and compliance framework templates need to be improved."
"The user interface could be improved. Sometimes, the visibility is not immediately available for the environment. We have the native servers that come with the solutions, but we cannot see them in the Check Point log. Another issue is with the integrated file monitoring. It would make sense to have stuff like file integrity monitoring and malware scanning available within this module because we don't want to integrate another product."
"The shift left part is not yet at a maturity level I desire. I need more integration from the code-to-cloud principle."
"Almost all features are good, however, they still require improvements to the code security portion on which integration with the major source code repository is required."
"I would like them to include support for their products in languages other than English."
"The reporting has a lot of opportunities to continuously improve so that we can continue to show value."
"Scalability, particularly in workload protection, is an area that needs improvement."
"I strongly advise that the multi-layered security system of Check Point often undergoes updates and new versions keep coming."
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"I do see that some features associated with the IAST part are not included in the tool, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"The tool's command line and configuration are hard for us to understand and make deployment complex. It should also include zero trust, access control features and database connectivity."
"The solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads within one license and no additional charges."
"Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is always known as a good solution but an expensive one. When you're using Cisco, Check Point, or Palo Alto, you know that you will pay more, but you know that it will work."
"The licensing and costs are straightforward, as they have a baseline of 100 workloads (number of instances) within one license with no additional nor hidden charges. If you want to have 200 workloads under Dome9, then you need to take out two licenses for that. Also, it does not have any impact on cloud billing, as data is shared using the API call. This is well within the limit of free API calls provided by the cloud provider."
"In the beginning, the price of Dome9 was cheap, whereas now it is not."
"The pricing is tremendous and super cheap. It is shockingly cheap for what you get out of it. I am happy with that. I hope that doesn't get reported back and they increase the prices. I love the pricing and the licensing makes sense. It is just assets: The more stuff that you have, the more you pay."
"I would advise taking into account the existing number of devices and add a forecast of the number of devices to be added in the coming year or two, to obtain better pricing."
"The license for CloudGuard Posture Management is about $80 a year, and it's based on your cloud footprint, not the number of users. So you could have a million users, and it doesn't matter."
"Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is expensive."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution."
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"It's a costly solution"
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
5%
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
From an improvement perspective, I would like to create new policies in the tool, especially if it is deployed for the prevention part, but currently, we need to do it manually. I hear that Palo Al...
What is your primary use case for Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes?
I use the solution in my company for vulnerability management, configuration management, compliance, safety handling, and everything else.
 

Also Known As

Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management, Dome9, Check Point CloudGuard Workload Protection, Check Point CloudGuard Intelligence
StackRox
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Symantec, Citrix, Car and Driver, Virgin, Cloud Technology Partners
City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Find out what your peers are saying about Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.