We performed a comparison between Tenable.io Container Security and Snyk based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Tenable.io Container Security excels at identifying weaknesses and misconfigurations. Snyk is commended for its scanning features and ability to generate pull requests and resolve problems automatically. Tenable.io Container Security could its auto-remediation, asset visibility, and compliance system customization. Snyk could work on improving compatibility while expanding its vulnerability database and enhancing its reporting mechanism.
Service and Support: Users say Tenable.io support is hindered by technical challenges. Some users said they value Snyk's proactive approach and the abundance of resources they provide, while others said that Snyk should rethink how their support team organizes and prioritizes requests.
Ease of Deployment: Both products are relatively easy to set up with good support from their respective teams.The setup process for Tenable.io Container Security is made easier by solid documentation. Tenable.io takes around one or two weeks to deploy on average, while Snyk's implementation process can take a couple of days or a few weeks. Integrating Snyk with different repositories or CI/CD systems is generally considered to be simple, although some users reported challenges.
Pricing: Tenable.io Container Security's cost is determined by the application's page count. Snyk's pricing is viewed as costly compared to alternative options. Nevertheless, but many users said that Snyk's pricing is justifiable for businesses, as it includes integrated features and avoids additional expenses.
ROI: Tenable.io Container Security yields an ROI by enhancing container security and averting security incidents. Snyk emphasizes economical bug resolution early in the development process, possibly resulting in a significant return on investment.
Comparison Results: Tenable.io Container Security is preferred Snyk. Users appreciate its efficient setup process, extensive vulnerability detection, and ability to identify misconfiguration. Tenable.io Container Security also offers superior technical support and a customizable compliance system. Snyk lacks some of the advanced features and support options provided by Tenable.io.
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the SBOM."
"Snyk is a developer-friendly product."
"Snyk has given us really good results because it is fully automated. We don't have to scan projects every time to find vulnerabilities, as it already stores the dependencies that we are using. It monitors 24/7 to find out if there are any issues that have been reported out on the Internet."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most effective feature in securing project dependencies stems from its ability to highlight security vulnerabilities."
"It has an accurate database of vulnerabilities with a low amount of false positives."
"Provides clear information and is easy to follow with good feedback regarding code practices."
"Our overall security has improved. We are running fewer severities and vulnerabilities in our packages. We fixed a lot of the vulnerabilities that we didn't know were there."
"The strong security provided by the product in the container environment is its most valuable feature."
"Nessus scanner is very effective for internal penetration testing."
"Tenable.io detects misconfiguration when you deploy a Docker or Kubernetes container. It's much better to remedy these issues during deployment instead of waiting until the container is already in the production environment."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scanning, reporting, and troubleshooting."
"Currently, I haven't implemented the solution due to its deprecation by the site. However, I can highlight some benefits of Tenable Cloud Security, a cybersecurity solution with various features for scanning vulnerabilities in both cloud environments and on-premises container security."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, it is a good solution."
"It helps us secure our applications from the build phase and identify the weaknesses from scratch."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"The tool should provide more flexibility and guidance to help us fix the top vulnerabilities before we go into production."
"The solution could improve the reports. They have been working on improving the reports but more work could be done."
"DAST has shortcomings, and Snyk needs to improve and overcome such shortcomings."
"Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better."
"They were a couple of issues which happened because Snyk lacked some documentation on the integration side. Snyk is lacking a lot of documentation, and I would like to see them improve this. This is where we struggle a bit. For example, if something breaks, we can't figure out how to fix that issue. It may be a very simple thing, but because we don't have the proper documentation around an issue, it takes us a bit longer."
"Basically the licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"Offering API access in the lower or free open-source tiers would be better. That would help our customers. If you don't have an enterprise plan, it becomes challenging to integrate with the rest of the systems. Our customers would like to have some open-source integrations in the next release."
"They need to work on auto-remediation so it's easier for the security team to act quickly when certain assets or resources are deployed. The latest version has a CIS benchmark that you need to meet for containers in the cloud, but more automation is needed."
"The support is tricky to reach, so we would like better-oriented technical support enabled."
"Tenable.io Container Security should improve integration modules. It should also improve stability."
"The initial setup is highly complex."
"The stability and setup phase of the product are areas with shortcomings where improvements are needed."
"I feel that in certain areas this product has false positives which the company should work on. They should also try to include business logic vulnerabilities in the scanner testing. Finally, the vulnerability assessment feature should be increased to other hardware devices, apart from firewalls."
"I believe integration plays a crucial role for Tenable, particularly in terms of connecting with other products and various container solutions like Docker or Kubernetes. It seems that in future updates, enhanced integration is something I would appreciate. Currently, there is integration with Docker, but when it comes to Kubernetes or other container solutions, it appears to be a challenge, especially with on-prem scanners."
More Tenable.io Container Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews while Tenable.io Container Security is ranked 22nd in Container Security with 7 reviews. Snyk is rated 8.2, while Tenable.io Container Security is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable.io Container Security writes "It helps you catch misconfigurations before they go into a production environment where they're harder to deal with". Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, Fortify Static Code Analyzer, Veracode and GitHub Advanced Security, whereas Tenable.io Container Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Wiz, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Sysdig Secure. See our Snyk vs. Tenable.io Container Security 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.