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

SUSE NeuVector vs Trivy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

SUSE NeuVector
Ranking in Container Security
18th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (19th)
Trivy
Ranking in Container Security
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SUSE NeuVector is 2.5%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trivy is 5.8%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Good value for money; great for policy management
Our model of deployment for this solution is on-premises. For people looking into this solution and trying to use it for the first time, I'd say make your life easier by using the SUSE product as well on top of your community scale stack. That makes your integration points a lot easier and smoother. I would also say during your initial setup, make sure that your clusters are already in terms of the capabilities with the version required. I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that what they offer is solid, but they could expand their service and add more features just to make more things integrated into an enterprise itself.
Utsav Sharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Maintain operational efficiency by detecting misconfigurations and vulnerabilities
The vulnerability scanning feature is excellent as it supports various container capabilities like Docker and Sharma. It also offers repository scanning in the source code domain, allowing pre-push code scans. The misconfiguration detection works well for CloudFormation, Docker files, and Terraform. Its compliance support, like NIST, ensures that configurations align with standards. Trivy helps me significantly detect misconfigurations missed by the ops engineers or in Terraform by the naked eye. It ensures that my deployments are free of misconfigurations and vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"Trivy is easy to integrate with CI/CD and can be installed on desktops to scan images."
"I definitely recommend Trivy."
"The most valuable feature of Trivy is its easy integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"Trivy's open source nature and wide functionality are incredibly valuable."
"Trivy is easy to integrate with CI/CD and can be installed on desktops to scan images."
"What I find valuable is the ease of setup with Trivy, including pre-defined operators that require minimal configuration."
"Trivy is very reliable and always has an up-to-date database to scan images and identify vulnerabilities."
"Trivy is particularly useful for checking if Docker images have critical vulnerabilities before they reach production."
 

Cons

"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"However, I found that the support in Egypt was not very qualified, and there was a need to upgrade to a higher support layer to solve my issues."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"Using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features between two clusters and could be improved."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The reporting could be a little better."
"The only problem is that Trivy does not support reporting features such as generating reports in CSV, which is useful for auditing and reporting."
"Currently, the container image scanning is static. A dynamic scanning capability during runtime would be a significant advantage."
"In our CI/CD pipelines, Trivy lacks built-in functionality for report analysis."
"In our CI/CD pipelines, Trivy lacks built-in functionality for report analysis."
"Trivy can improve by providing an output in PDF format. Additionally, it takes longer to scan container images built with many layers."
"The main area for improvement is in differentiating between OS and application-based vulnerabilities."
"Trivy can improve by providing an output in PDF format."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Government
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about NeuVector?
The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NeuVector?
SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution. You have to pay for the support.
What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features be...
What needs improvement with Trivy?
Trivy's marketing and awareness need improvement. Not everyone knows about it, which isn't ideal given its capabilities. There's potential to integrate AI and machine learning for enhanced function...
What is your primary use case for Trivy?
I use Trivy ( /products/trivy-reviews ) to scan code for vulnerabilities before deployment. Our projects, which are developed by different developers, involve various dependencies and third-party c...
What advice do you have for others considering Trivy?
I recommend Trivy to others due to its powerful and useful features. However, I suggest increasing its marketing to raise awareness. I rate Trivy an eight out of ten.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

NeuVector
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about SUSE NeuVector vs. Trivy and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.