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

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform [EOL] comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 4, 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

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Se...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Container Security (15th)
Threat Stack Cloud Security...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

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.
VR
Pivotal for SOX and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance as well as security in AWS, but needs work on the application layer side
It certainly has a lot of capabilities and we're not using much of what it can do. That's something that, as we mature as an organization, we'll expand into. 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, so that's the biggest area for improvement. They're currently looking at changing that with an acquisition, but as it stands right now, that's the only spot that I consider weak.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"The technical support is good."
"One of the most valuable features I found was the ability of this solution to map the network and show you the communication between your containers and your different nodes."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"We like the ability of the host security module to monitor the processes running on our servers to help us monitor activity."
"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."
"Threat Stack has connectivity."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"We're using it on container to see when activity involving executables happens, and that's great."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the SecOps because they have our back and they help us with the reports... It's like having an extension of your team. And then, it grows with you."
 

Cons

"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"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."
"The testing process could be improved."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"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."
"The solution's price could be better."
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"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..."
"Some features do not work as expected."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"The price of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is better than Palo Alto Prisma."
"We purchase a yearly basis license for the solution."
"It's a costly solution"
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"I'm happy with the amount that we spend for the product that we get and the overall service that we get. It's not cheap, but I'm still happy with the spend."
"It is very expensive compared to some other products. The pricing is definitely high."
"It is a cost-effective choice versus other solutions on the market."
"We find the licensing and pricing very easy to understand and a good value for the services provided."
"It came in cheaper than Trend Micro when we purchased it a few years ago."
"What we're paying now is somewhere around $15 to $20 per agent per month, if I recall correctly. The other cost we have is SecOps."
"Pricing seems to be in line with the market structure. It's fine."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
860,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Real Estate/Law Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
 

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.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

StackRox
Threat Stack, CSP,
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
StatusPage.io, Walkbase, Spanning, DNAnexus, Jobcase, Nextcapital, Smartling, Veracode, 6sense
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, SentinelOne and others in Container Security. Updated: June 2025.
860,711 professionals have used our research since 2012.