We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Snyk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Snyk, Lacework and others in Container Security."The most valuable feature is the ability to share resources."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"Snyk is a developer-friendly product."
"The solution has great features and is quite stable."
"There are many valuable features. For example, the way the scanning feature works. The integration is cool because I can integrate it and I don't need to wait until the CACD, I can plug it in to our local ID, and there I can do the scanning. That is the part I like best."
"A main feature of Snyk is that when you go with SCA, you do get properly done security composition, also from the licensing and open-source parameters perspective. A lot of companies often use open-source libraries or frameworks in their code, which is a big security concern. Snyk deals with all the things and provides you with a proper report about whether any open-source code or framework that you are using is vulnerable. In that way, Snyk is very good as compared to other tools."
"I think all the standard features are quite useful when it comes to software component scanning, but I also like the new features they're coming out with, such as container scanning, secrets scanning, and static analysis with SAST."
"It has a nice dashboard where I can see all the vulnerabilities and risks that they provided. I can also see the category of any risk, such as medium, high, and low. They provide the input priority-wise. The team can target the highest one first, and then they can go to medium and low ones."
"The advantage of Snyk is that Snyk automatically creates a pull request for all the findings that match or are classified according to the policy that we create. So, once we review the PR within Snyk and we approve the PR, Snyk auto-fixes the issue, which is quite interesting and which isn't there in any other product out there. So, Snyk is a step ahead in this particular area."
"Its reports are nice and provide information about the issue as well as resolution. They also provide a proper fix. If there's an issue, they provide information in detail about how to remediate that issue."
"They're trying to convert it to the platform as a source. They are moving in the direction of Cloud Foundry so it can be easier for a developer to deploy it."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"The log export function could be easier when shipping logs to other platforms such as Splunk."
"It would be great if they can include dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning features. Checkmarx and Veracode provide dynamic, interactive, and run-time scanning, but Snyk doesn't do that. That's the reason there is more inclination towards Veracode, Checkmarx, or AppScan. These are a few tools available in the market that do all four types of scanning: static, dynamic, interactive, and run-time."
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"The feature for automatic fixing of security breaches could be improved."
"We have to integrate with their database, which means we need to send our entire code to them to scan, and they send us the report. A company working in the financial domain usually won't like to share its code or any information outside its network with any third-party provider."
"All such tools should definitely improve the signatures in their database. Snyk is pretty new to the industry. They have a pretty good knowledge base, but Veracode is on top because Veracode has been in this business for a pretty long time. They do have a pretty large database of all the findings, and the way that the correlation engine works is superb. Snyk is also pretty good, but it is not as good as Veracode in terms of maintaining a large space of all the historical data of vulnerabilities."
"The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improve"
"It can be improved from the reporting perspective and scanning perspective. They can also improve it on the UI front."
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 12th in Container Security with 1 review while Snyk is ranked 2nd in Container Security with 9 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 9.0, while Snyk is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Allows teams to create their own virtual spaces and share resources". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Snyk writes "Does a good analysis from the licensing and open-source perspective, but the UI, reporting, and scanning should be better". Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Security, SUSE NeuVector, CoreOS Clair and Tenable.io Container Security, whereas Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Mend, Checkmarx and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks.
See our list of best Container Security vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.
