We performed a comparison between Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Veracode based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is easy to install and manage."
"Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its monitoring feature."
"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."
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"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 is the ability to share resources."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pros →
"I like Veracode's static analysis. It was one of the core development tools when I worked with a telecommunication company where we were delivering new features for various applications and purposes each week, such as CRM, data channels, compliance, traffic data, etc."
"It's hard to say that any single feature is the most essential. There are many errors and vulnerabilities in software today in the standard libraries for different vendors because. We don't need to reinvent the wheel every time because we're using standard libraries, and it's important to know that your security isn't compromised because you are using libraries with vulnerabilities."
"This is a great tool for learning about potential vulnerabilities in code."
"Scanning of .war and .jar is key for us."
"The main feature that I have found valuable is the solution's ability to find issues in static analysis. Additionally, there are plenty of useful tools."
"Provides consistent evaluation and results without huge fluctuations in false positives or negatives."
"I like the way the flaws are reported in the system."
"It is scalable and quick to deploy into the site and the pipelines. The reports and analytics are good, and the false positive rate is low. It gives true results."
"The solution's price could be better."
"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 solution lacks features when compared to some of the competitors such as Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and has room for improvement."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The testing process could be improved."
"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 initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Cons →
"Veracode needs to improve its integration with other tools."
"When we engaged Veracode to conduct the manual penetration testing, they were extremely slow in completing the task and delivering the report, causing a delay of two to three weeks for us."
"Some features could be improved in terms of user-friendliness."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of the system. Sometimes, the servers are very busy and slow... Also, the integration with SonarQube is very weak, so we had to implement a custom solution to extend it."
"Veracode is costly, and there is potential for improvement in its pricing."
"The technical support service has room for improvement."
"The static analysis is prone to a lot of false positives. But that's how it is with most static analysis tools... Also, the static analysis can sometimes take a little while. The time that it takes to do a scan should be improved."
"It needs better controls to include/exclude specific sections when creating a report that can be shared externally with customers and prospects."
More Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is ranked 17th in Container Security with 10 reviews while Veracode is ranked 4th in Container Security with 194 reviews. Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is rated 8.4, while Veracode is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes writes "Provides network mapping feature for visualizing container communication but complex setup ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veracode writes "Helps to reduce false positives and prevent vulnerable code from entering production, but does not support incremental scanning ". Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, SUSE NeuVector, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security and Sysdig Secure, whereas Veracode is most compared with SonarQube, Checkmarx One, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and OWASP Zap. See our Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Veracode report.
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.
