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

Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs Veracode 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

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
Veracode
Ranking in Container Security
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
203
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (2nd), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (2nd), Software Composition Analysis (SCA) (3rd), Static Code Analysis (1st), Application Security Posture Management (ASPM) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes is 2.1%, down from 2.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veracode is 3.5%, down from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security
 

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.
Sajal Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers shift-left security strategy and helps us with the latest security configurations, OWASP standards, and SAST standards
It's robustness is the main benefit to the organization. As it gets upgraded with time, it also improves the coverage – security configuration coverages and vulnerability coverages. It also updates itself with the latest known vulnerabilities that are uploaded to the NVD, OWASP, or other databases. So it gets upgraded itself with that. And so with each upgrade, it gets better and better. The solution offers the ability to prevent vulnerable code from going into production. It provides us with a report containing multiple remediations and mitigations for each vulnerability. For example, if it finds a cross-site scripting vulnerability, it will also include references like CWE and CVE records, instructions on how to fix it, and the specific line of code or module where the vulnerability is present. This helps us fix the issues accordingly. I'm a penetration tester and DevSecOps engineer. I evaluate the findings, mark false positives, and manually exploit vulnerabilities if they exist. If we need further clarification, we raise a ticket with the Veracode team and get consultancy from them. We are a software development team. If we find a vulnerability, I exploit it and come back with the best possible mitigation, and the dev team fixes it. If we use Veracode Fix, it might use third-party implementations or make changes we aren't aware of. We need to be very aware of what our application is using internally. It should be known to us. As per my experience, the solution's policy reporting ensures compliance with industry standards. It comes with multiple features. I get the most out of it, and it's good. The solution provides visibility into application status at every phase of development. Like static analysis, dynamic analysis, software composition, and manual penetration tests - throughout the SDLC We have a pipeline that I maintain. I use the Veracode API account and have integrated it with AWS and our Jenkins pipeline. We use Snyk for SCA and Veracode for SAST scanning. At the earliest stage of the build, the SAST scan runs along with the JS and PHP files. It provides us with reports, which are then handed over to the other tools we depend on. If I validate the report or check the Veracode dashboard and find vulnerabilities, I mark them as false positives or existing issues. We work on multiple projects, but the one I'm handling these days only uses Veracode for SAST. It's been about one and a half years since I've been working with Veracode and this project. It is quite impressive. There are some things Veracode cannot find, like code obfuscations inside the code and some insecure randoms. Sometimes, it misses those flaws. But overall, if I compare it with other tools, it is better. I will definitely recommend others to use this tool. We run the scan before each deployment. If the dev team builds a new module or something, we scan it along with all the files. If we find anything, we get it fixed. That's how it works. Veracode is quite important to the organization's shift-left security strategy because we make a scan for each deployment. Sometimes, if I think we need to perform a shift-left, I just make a scan before deployment and check for any misconfiguration or vulnerability in the code.

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 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."
"The most beneficial security feature of the product revolves around the areas of vulnerability and configuration."
"Offers easy management with authentication and authorization features"
"I am impressed with the tool's visibility."
"The technical support is good."
"I like virtualization and all those tools that come with OpenShift. I also like Advanced Cluster Management and the built-in security."
"It is easy to install and manage."
"The Static and Dynamic Analysis capabilities are very valuable to us. They've improved the speed of the inspection process."
"You can easily integrate it with Azure DevOps. This is an added value because we work with Azure DevOps. Veracode is natively supported and we don't have to work with APIs."
"The deployment mode is very useful."
"The pricing is worth it."
"With the pipeline scanner, it's easier for developers to scan their products, as they don't have to export anything from their computers. They can do everything with the command line on their computer."
"Considering that in my project, we are mostly using Software Composition Analysis as a part of Static Code Analysis, for me, the main part is reporting and highlighting necessary vulnerabilities. Veracode platform has a rather good database of different vulnerabilities in different libraries and different sources. So, finding vulnerabilities in third-party libraries is the main feature of Software Composition Analysis that we use. It is the most important feature for us."
"This is a great tool for learning about potential vulnerabilities in code."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its extensive reporting capabilities and user-friendly interface."
 

Cons

"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 deprecation of APIs is a concern since the deprecation of APIs will cause issues for us every time we upgrade."
"The initial setup is pretty complex. There's a learning curve, and its cost varies across different environments. It's difficult."
"The solution's visibility and vulnerability prevention should be improved."
"The support and specifications need to be up to date for the cluster technologies"
"The documentation about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security available online is very limited... So it's very limited to the documentation."
"Red Hat is somewhat expensive."
"The static scans on Java lack microservices architecture scanning. We have developed an in-house pattern for this and the scans can't take care of it as a single entity."
"The number of false positives could be reduced a lot. For each good result, we are getting somewhere around 15 to 20 false positives."
"Improve Mobile Application Dynamic Scanning DAST - .ipa and .apk"
"The reports on offer are too verbose."
"They should improve on the static scanning time."
"I'd like to see an improved component of it work in a DevOps world, where the scanning speed does not impede progress along the AppSec pipeline."
"Its cost and the long scanning times for large applications are the areas for improvement."
"There are times when certain modules cannot be scanned automatically, requiring us to manually select these modules and initiate the scanning process on our side."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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"
"Red Hat offers two pricing options for their solution: a separate price, and a bundled price under the OpenShift Platform Plus."
"The pricing model is moderate, meaning it is not very expensive."
"We're very comfortable with their model. We think they're a good value. We worked very closely with Veracode on understanding their license model, understanding what comprises the fee and what does not. With their assistance in design, we decomposed our application in a way where we are scanning a very significant amount of code without wasting their capacity and generating redundant reported issues. You scan in profiles, per se. And we work with them, in their offices, to design the most effective approach. So the advice I would have for customers is, you can get up and live fast, but work closely with Veracode to refine the method you use for scanning and the way you compile the applications. There's a concept called entry-point scanning, and that's probably not used well by the rest of their customers. We see our licensing as a good value because we leverage it heavily."
"I found Veracode very expensive, though I'm not the person paying for it. I was surprised to find out how much the subscription costs and that the executive board approved it, but it was a no-brainer because now my company has better security scans."
"The cost has been a barrier to wider use here. I think my team is the only one at the university. Other folks might like to use it, but it's pretty pricey. You could see what else is in the market, but I hear that's the price for most solutions. You might not find a better deal in the market, or it might be an incomplete solution. I mean, for the level of interaction we get with Veracode staff, it's been pretty good."
"The Veracode price model is based on application profiles, which is how you package your components for scanning."
"The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions."
"It's too expensive for the European market. That is why, in a big bank with 400 applications, we are able to use it only for 10 of them. But the other solutions are also expensive, so it wasn't a differentiator."
"Veracode's pricing is on the higher end, but it is acceptable."
"Veracode is affordable for large organizations, but its pricing may be out of reach for small and medium companies."
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
Financial Services Firm
25%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

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.
Which gives you more for your money - SonarQube or Veracode?
SonarQube is easy to deploy and configure, and also integrates well with other tools to do quality code analysis. SonarQube has a great community edition, which is open-source and free. Easy to use...
What do you like most about Veracode?
The SAST and DAST modules are great.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Veracode?
The product’s price is a bit higher compared to other solutions. However, the tool provides good vulnerability and database features. It is worth the money.
 

Also Known As

StackRox
Crashtest Security , Veracode Detect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

City National Bank, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Manhattan Associates, Azalea Health, Sabre, QAD, Floor & Decor, Prophecy International, SchoolCNXT, Keap, Rekner, Cox Automotive, Automation Anywhere, State of Missouri and others.
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes vs. Veracode and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.