Sysdig Secure vs Tenable Security Center comparison

"I see Sysdig as the most comprehensive solution in comparison to its competitors."

"From a container-based standpoint, it offers excellent scalability to its users...I would tell those planning to use the solution that, from a container standpoint, it's excellent."

"Sysdig Secure has positively impacted our organization by improving visibility into our Kubernetes environment and focusing on real risk, which has reduced alert noise, improved threat detection at runtime, and made vulnerability management more efficient by prioritizing issues that actually affect running workloads."

"In terms of measurable outcomes, I have seen a reduction in vulnerabilities, as Sysdig Secure can tell us how many vulnerabilities are present on a day-to-day report basis, which has improved our efficiency by more than 50% and helps us stay compliant with necessary regulations."

"The log monitor is the most valuable feature."

"Sysdig Secure has many strong foundational features like compliance and benchmark, security, network access management, and vulnerability management."

"I have not seen any stability issues so far."

"We appreciate this feature, especially when combined with CD monitoring. The implementation of requested features has been remarkable, such as scanning for compliance in CRM processes for the US government. We heavily rely on this feature to assess compliance with federal requirements."

"Support is knowledgeable."

"The tool provides us insight into the happens of the network and its hosts. It provides me with a list of hosts."

"The scans are the most valuable aspect of this solution."

"The solution is completely stable and operation is user-friendly."

"It basically reviews our threat landscape vulnerability."

"Tenable Security Center is a relatively very good solution, and I don't think it needs improvement; it's a perfect solution."

"The Auto-Remediate feature is good."

"Has a great advanced scanning feature."

"Perhaps, it could support more custom implementations, as our company utilizes custom implementations rather than standard ones. Configuring it requires a deep understanding and adjustment to our specific needs, which took some time. Other than that, I'm unsure about potential improvements. We were considering the possibility of compartmentalizing their tools. Currently, in Sysdig Secure, they bundle multiple features, and we are unable to use them individually. For instance, if we only need compliance scanning, we have to deploy the entire secure package. This is because of the way their agent functions, but I can't delve into more details."

"Reporting can definitely be better. Live dashboards should be configurable for a longer period of time rather than 30 days. Being able to go back in time to compare six months ago to today would be valuable."

"The solution needs to improve overall from a CSPM standpoint since they can't compete with Wiz or Orca."

"I give it an eight because of the bugs, specifically the fix version bug where sometimes there is no fix version shown, and I wish Sysdig Secure would create a customizable UI that orders features by importance to enhance user experience."

"There was a security concern related to a specific feature. While the feature itself was promising, it posed a challenge. The situation revolved around code scanning. If your source code is hosted within your own premises, say on Bitbucket, you naturally wouldn't want your code to be accessible to external parties beyond your company. Keeping your code base private is a standard practice. However, in the case of code scanning using Sysdig Secure, they copy your code to their SaaS platform. This posed an issue for us. When we inquired about this, their response acknowledged the concern. In an upcoming release, they plan to enable code scanning within your on-premises environment through the assistance of an agent. This change is already in progress. While this tool stands out compared to existing solutions in the market, it's important to note that there are still some limitations to consider. Another drawback we encountered relates to our expertise with Kubernetes. The tool can monitor Kubernetes audit logs, triggering alerts and notifications. However, it falls short in terms of taking direct action based on these alerts. There are different methods of event capture, including through system labels and system calls, as well as via Kubernetes audit events. Notably, at the system level, Sysdig Secure can both detect and respond to events, allowing actions like blocking and warning. This proactive approach is effective at the system call level. However, when it comes to monitoring Kubernetes audit events, Sysdig Secure can only notify without being able to execute any further actions. It can't block access or containers. The vendor likened their role to that of a monitoring camera, observing events and sending notifications without the capacity to intervene. This limitation applies to Kubernetes audit events. Given that everything operates within our system, there is a workaround available: configuring system-level policies to block containers as necessary."

"The dashboard could be more simple and show the more important issues that are detected first. We'd like to be able to set it up so more important issues show up more prominently in the dashboard."

"Sysdig Secure needs to scale more for complete cloud-native coverage."

"Banks and financial institutions cannot use Sysdig Secure because it doesn't sell SaaS-hosted versions for under two hundred working nodes."

"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."

"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."

"The reporting needs a lot of work on the template."

"Tenable SC could improve by making the creation of the initial reports easier that correspond to our network."

"Tenable has some problems with agents going offline during scanning and lag between agents and the security center."

"The solution is expensive."

"We would like to see the inclusion of external IPs and simplified reporting that's easier to deal with"

"Additional costs are associated with using the solution, as additional scanners are required for different endpoints connected to the Tenable Security Center. If Tenable Security Center could extract information from these scanners automatically rather than manually, it would enhance user-friendliness for customers."

"Sysdig is competitive. The quality matches the pricing. Obviously, everyone wants things to be cheaper, but if you're realistic, you acknowledge that quality service comes with a price. Sysdig is the gold standard for Kubernetes, and I wouldn't choose anything else. We live in Kubernetes. Everything is containerized, so that means a lot to us, and we're willing to make an investment."

"It is quite costly compared to other tools."

"The solution's pricing depends on the agents...In short, the price depends on the environment of its user."

"In comparison to other cloud solutions, it's reasonably priced. However, when compared to in-house built open-source projects, it might be considered somewhat costly. The cost depends on whether someone sees the support provided by Sysdig as an advantage or if it's deemed unnecessary. Personally, I find the support to be excellent and consider it a good value."

"I am always going to say that it could be a little bit cheaper. I do feel that it is a little bit on the expensive side."

"We're able to save because we don't have to employ more staff members to help wit ht he scheduling of the scans, running the reports or sending them out to the systems owners. That alone is a big ROI for us."

"I rate the solution's price as seven on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive. The tool is quite expensive."

"Tenable is open-source."

"Compared to other companies or other products it could maybe be a little bit less, but the price is okay. I would say it's not very expensive."

"The licensing costs for this solution are approximately $100,000 US, and I think that covers everything."

"Tenable SC is priced per asset, with the basic solution starting around US$12,000 for 500 assets."

"The price can start at €10,000 ($13,000 USD) for between 500 and 1,000 assets, and the price can climb into the millions as more assets are added."

"Though reasonable, the main competitor of Tenable SC, Rapid7, offers a more aggressive and better priced product."