Aqua Cloud Security Platform Reviews

The solution is used mainly to scan public clouds or containers.

It can be used on demand. For example, when we go through the DevOps lifecycle, containers can be brought in based on demand for some use cases. We often need application onboarding and application changes. The containers do pop up based on the user story that has been defined. Therefore, we have on-demand scanning of those, and we utilize Aqua Security scan to handle that task.

The container scanning is very helpful. It's the prime use case that we have. The scanning protects against container vulnerabilities.

The solution is stable.

From what I understand, the initial setup is simple. 

The solution appears to be scaling in terms of on-demand scanning.

I have not witnessed any shortcomings in terms of the product's usability.

The solution could improve user-friendliness.

I've been working with the solution for a few years. 

I've seen that it is stable and reliable. I haven't had issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

I haven't tried to scale the solution. I'm not sure from a pricing perspective if it would be easy to scale. However, as a cloud solution, and the on-demand scanning capabilities, it is fairly scalable.

I've never dealt with technical support.

While the process does seem to be straightforward, I have not personally implemented the solution.

I don't handle pricing. That is being monitored by another team.

We've previously recommended this solution to our customers. 

We are a service company. If a customer we are servicing, has specific requirements and this solution fits with them, we would suggest it.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Generally, we are using the product for container security, and we have several items related to containers. For example, one-time protection and zero-day attacks.

I have different kinds of products, and Aqua is not limited to containers only. It's also helping to secure operations. It's a very good product from an environmental perspective. There are actually a lot of things you can do. It's very flexible.

The solution can scale.

It is flexible.

Support is very helpful.

Sometimes I got stressed with the UI. It's not a problem, it's just the theme while using the 5.0 version is different from the current version 6.0. 

It could have more security prospects or even offer some kind of add-on for security. 

I'd like to see the IaC vulnerabilities also. We'd like to do vulnerability scans around it. 

I've been using the solution for a year and a half. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. There aren't any bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

You can scale up or down. Our architecture is about to upgrade. We're just waiting on the process now. While it can scale, users should also consider the billing and costs if they decide to expand. We do tend to have all of our users on it, however, for the past month and a half has not been working as we work to transfer versions and update architecture. 

Support has been fine overall. If I have concerns, they help me one on one. Often in one call, we can have any issue sorted. They are knowledgeable and help ensure everything gets resolved nicely.

Positive

Initially, we had some issues. There were problems with Microsoft and AI. In the latest Aqua release, we did a multi-cloud deployment, and we coordinated the cloud and the migration. 

There are a couple of components to contend with. For example, there's the Aqua gateway. It's fine to work with. However, it's hard to have control. 

It's not overly complex. It just really depends on the environment. Therefore, it could be easy, or a little more complicated. 

Mostly, my experience was pretty good. I'd rate it a 4.5 out of five in terms of ease of setup.

The solution is competitively priced.

I'm not clear on the exact pricing, and I don't deal with that aspect directly.

We looked into other options. There's lots of competition out there. There is NGINX, for example, or we can do container security via AWS or GCP. However, we have a hybrid environment, and Aqua accommodates us in that sense. 

There are other players on the market who can give customers similar options to improve security. However, Aqua is good and very competitive in the market.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The most valuable feature is the on-demand patching. There are times when vulnerabilities don't have available fixes, and Aqua Security allows it to pass the vulnerability in real-time while the fix is being developed.

Their sandboxing service is also really good. When we download an open source tool, we can run it in a sandbox environment and see if there are any back holes or trap doors in the code. However, we don't like that their services are in the US.

Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting. It provides all the open issues, but no actionable solution is provided. There's no intelligence behind the reporting, so that can be improved. Also, it could be a cheaper solution. However, it is costly because it's a very small market and the first of its kind.

Regarding additional features, we would like to see better log ingestion. For example, if we have an EDR or a SOC, we want the SOC, the cloud and the container security to interact better. That means the cloud should have better ingestion of logs and SOC logs and be able to give more heuristic analysis of security issues rather than just ones and zeros.

The licensing model could be better because it has a scalable container environment. If we're working in a small environment, it is fine, but if we have a large environment, we can't predict the traffic for the day. If the marketing team decides to launch a campaign with high traffic, then we won't have licenses available for all our ports. Therefore, the licensing model needs to be rethought, and we can't have per-port licenses because ports can increase.

We have been using this solution for over a year. It is a managed service and deployed on cloud.

It is a good solution and is stable. Their services are good, and they provide good responses. If there are business-related issues, they will contact you and answer your questions on priority.

Swisslog and Aqua Security work with a very similar pricing model as they have an agent deployed in a cluster that covers all the containers or namespaces in that cluster. Now, if clusters are also scalable, which is the case in containers, the number of licenses consumed increases.

Aqua Security charges per license. So we usually take their licenses in our testing and QA environment. However, we limit it in the production environment because, in QA testing, our environment expands and collapses because developers are testing. So in production, we can forecast how many licenses we may need in the future.

However, if there is no production system, we cannot account for the number of fraud and containers and we will have to pay through the roof for these solutions because they charge for containers per port for every single agent they deploy.

About 20 to 30 people use Aqua Security from the DevOps and security team. They use the solution because they handle the infrastructure and security.

The technical support is good, and they reply on time.

The initial setup was easy.

I rate the price a four out of ten, with one being a high price and ten being a reasonable price. It is a costly solution.

Aqua Security is an on-demand service. Swisslog just launched a product, but it is not as good as Aqua Security in terms of accuracy. Swisslog is integrated with the package and with Aqua Security, you need to pay more for the first scan.

I rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use Aqua Security for securing our container applications, particularly when it comes to the runtime stage.

There are about five of us from the security side of my company who directly use this solution.

The most helpful feature of Aqua Security is Drift Prevention, which is a feature that allows images to be immutable. In addition, one of the main reasons we went with Aqua Security is because it provides strong protection when it comes to runtime security.

Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public. I would be much happier if they chose to share more documentation and resources when it comes to their knowledge base.

As for extra features that I would like to see, source code scanning is on the top of my list. To be clear, I don't mean code scanning in terms of source code composition, but rather I would like to see more in the way of code analysis that tells you whether the code you're writing adheres to the current best practices or not.

I have been using Aqua Security for about a year now.

In terms of stability, I would give Aqua Security 4/5 stars.

I would give the scalability a 5/5 stars because it basically scales by itself. It's just the licensing that restricts your usage.

The technical support is sometimes quick and responsive, but at other times it may take a bit longer to get assistance.

Neutral

Aqua Security is one of the first solutions I have used for container security, however I have also taken a look at ACS from Red Hat, Snyk, and Prisma from Palo Alto.

We went with Aqua Security mainly because we believe they offer the strongest protection in terms of runtime security.

The setup was a little complex but not too complicated. The difficulty level lies somewhere in the middle between easy and hard.

We implemented Aqua Security mostly by ourselves, but we also took advice from a consultant. Our implementation strategy mainly involved the use of Java forms with manifest files, then we slowly deployed one component at a time.

In all, the basic deployment took just a few hours, but there is always more work to be done afterwards in terms of configuration, integrations, and properly getting started with it in our environment. It's hard to put a number on the hours required, but it probably took a few days to get everything configured and ready to be used.

Dealing with licensing costs isn't my responsibility, but I know that the licenses don't depend on the number of users, but instead are priced according to your workload.

I would rate Aqua Security a seven out of ten.

We use this product for all of our network security.

The container security element of this product has been very valuable to our organization.

We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers.

The runtime security element of this solution could also be improved, in order for it to be more universally usable.

We have been using this solution for five or six years.

We have found this solution to be stable.

Scalability isn't an issue with this solution.

Before choosing this solution we also evaluated Snyk.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We did very little with Aqua, basically. We only used Aqua for the image scanning and document scanning and that's it. Since I was working on a DevSecOps project, I was asked to find how complicated it was comparatively, for example, which is more complicated, whether the Aqua or Prisma, and how fast these things could be churned out or integrated into an existing pipeline, or when you create a new pipeline, how fast these things work. I had to experiment with these things.

In our scenario, we were creating pipelines for Infrastructure as Code. Our pipeline would be doing the scanning for all infrastructure code. In that code, if any image is mentioned, we would pick them up, we would scan them, and that's where we'll be using Aqua or Prisma. We have created items with both of those. One of the pipelines which had Aqua would be scanning and finding the vulnerabilities inside the image.

The image security and image scanning were quite easy compared to Prisma. The solution was very user-friendly.

It is easy to set up. 

It's stable.

The documentation was robust.

It's easy to set up. 

I don't recall coming across any missing features. 

It's a bit hard to use the user roles. That was a bit confusing. That was from the interface side, the application from which we logged into Aqua. That needs a bit of improving. The admin was a bit confusing. 

I've used the solution for a couple of months, maybe. 

The stability is good. It is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. 

I did not try to scale the solution. 

We had 20 to 30 people on the solution. 

In my team, we had five members using it - the DevSecOps team. We were on the integration side of it. There might have been two to three project teams, basically, who used to used the pipelines, which we created for them.

We did not use support. We never came across any issues. 

I was working for Computer Software Corporation, CSC corporation, as a contract employee. There, we were asked to do a research on various cloud security applications. That's where we came in contact with Aqua. We were trying to do apple to apple comparison of Prisma and Aqua.

We felt Aqua is good and we even recommended Aqua to be used - rather than Prisma.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. 

If it is deployed from scratch, the documentation is pretty straightforward. We just followed the steps and we were able to do it. There were no unexpected bugs or any other issues we faced. Everything was quite straightforward.

I'd rate the solution four out of five in terms of the initial setup. 

Maintenance was taken care. Maintenance was good there. It doesn't need any more effort. What we used was the latest one, a stable version, and since we were dealing with a corporate organization, we wanted stable versions to be always tested. 

We did the implementation in-house.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing. I cannot speak of the exact costs. The company already had a licensed version. 

We were working with the latest version of the solution. 

We had a cloud dashboard to see our stuff, basically. We used it on-prem; however, once the scanning is done, the results would be posted on that platform. That's where we used to go and see the information.

It's fast to implement and straightforward. It works for all brackets. I'd recommend it to others. 

I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

We mainly used Aqua Security for container-related Kubernetes security in the CI/CD pipelines to secure the runtime of the Kubernetes clusters. 

The most valuable feature of Aqua Security is the scanner.

Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier.

In the future, Aqua Security should work on minimizing its footprint because it consumes a lot of resources on the cluster itself. We are receiving a lot of logs out of it, but there was some problem with receiving the events in the right order. It should also concentrate on not only collecting logs but events, traces,  and somehow into the metrics side.

I have been using Aqua Security for approximately two years.

Aqua Security is stable.

Aqua Security has been scalable in our usage.

Our setup was not very big, we had approximately 20 clusters and one central cluster. It scaled enough and we distribute it to the clusters, the enforcers on the nodes, it's a combination of centralized and distributed solution. I didn't use it over more than 20 clusters.

I have used the technical support from Aqua Security. We had some issues we had to solve ourselves.

I rate the support from Aqua Security a three out of five.

We previously used Red Hat and Prisma Cloud. Prisma Cloud was too expensive and Red Hat security is more similar to risk management, not risk posture management, and is not a real security tool. We decided on Aqua Security.

The initial setup of Aqua Security is simple if you know some helm charts work.

Aqua Security is not cheap, and it's not very expensive, such as Splunk, they are in the middle.

I rate Aqua Security an eight out of ten.

I'm using it for workload protection. So, in most cases, for protecting containers, verifying Kubernetes configurations, cloud configurations, and identifying security misconfigurations, vulnerabilities, and risks.

I use it to demonstrate to customers because I'm a sales engineer. Many customers want to protect their workloads and applications. 

For example, when I am using a Docker image with multiple vulnerabilities, I need to know which vulnerabilities are inside. Then I create security policies to allow or deny the deployment of containers from this image and also create a security policy for runtime. This way, when the application is running in the wild, we can guarantee that the security blocks any kind of exploitation.

There are many features that I really like. For example, the runtime policies are very easy to configure, and they are scalable across all environments. The DTA, which stands for Dynamic Threat Analysis, allows me to analyze Docker images in a sandbox environment before deployment, helping me anticipate risks.

The user interface could be improved, especially in terms of organization and clarity. Additionally, more comprehensive examples for deployments and feature usage would be helpful.

Maybe more plugins or something that makes it easier to integrate with CICD pipelines or interact with APIs.

I've been using it for about three years. I'm using the SaaS version.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. 

The customer service and support are good. 

Positive

The initial setup was very straightforward.

For me, it's a fair price.

I would definitely recommend using the solution. It's a very scalable solution with multiple features that help us protect our cloud environment effectively.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to secure cloud media applications that are developed for containers and cloud-native services like ETS, AKS and GCP.

I am the only one using this product in our company.

The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too. This solution helps us add an extra secure layer to protect applications and the infrastructure.

The integrations on CICD could be improved. If Aqua had more plugins or container images to integrate and automate more easily on CICD, it would be better. An integration with WAF would be very good too.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution that offers good performance. 

No, this is not a very scalable product. 

In general, the support for this solution is good. It could be improved if it catered for customers in different countries to meet their specific demands. 

The initial setup is a little bit complex for an on-premises deployment. We needed to have many specialized people on Kubernetes to maintain this deployment and keep it up to date. It is a little bit complex because of Kubernetes, not because of Aqua itself, but Aqua have some features to facilitate the deployment.

You need three or four people for the deployment. For a small environment, deployment would take two to three hours. For larger environments, it would take longer than that. 

This is an easy solution to maintain. The main thing is to maintain the databases.

The pricing of this solution could be improved. 

I would recommend this solution to companies have many cloud-native applications.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

Aqua Security allows us to check for vulnerabilities in the CI/CD pipeline, so application teams can remediate issues before going into production.

Aqua Security helps us to check the vulnerability of image assurance and check for malware.

In the next release, Aqua Security should add the ability to automatically send reports to customers.

I've been using Aqua Security for between two to three years.

Aqua Security's stability is very good.

Aqua Security can be scaled up and down depending on your needs.

Aqua Security's technical support is usually quite responsive.

Positive

There were some challenges with the initial setup.

We used an in-house team.

Aqua Security is the most advanced solution in the market for container security. I would rate it as eight out of ten.