Compared
- CNAPP platforms
- DIY scanners
- Vendor reports
- Penetration tests
- What overlaps
- What does not
We are not competing with your CNAPP. We are doing the part it does not.
The honest version of this page: if you need runtime prevention or multi-cloud breadth, buy a CNAPP. If you need to prove that the supplier running your containers actually fixed what they said they fixed, that is a different artifact, and this is what produces it.
Book a baseline assessment- CNAPP platforms
- DIY scanners
- Vendor reports
- Penetration tests
- What overlaps
- What does not
QubeAuditor
QubeAuditor is a container security assurance platform, not a CNAPP. A CNAPP such as Wiz, Prisma Cloud or Microsoft Defender for Cloud gives you broad multi-cloud posture and runtime detection. QubeAuditor gives you an independent read-only assessment of one container estate, with each finding assigned to an accountable vendor, re-tested on the next scan, and packaged as audit evidence. Most organisations that need the second already have the first.
Categories
Four things that get confused with each other.
These solve different problems and are frequently sold as though they were interchangeable. Knowing which one you are missing is most of the decision.
A CNAPP
Wiz, Prisma Cloud, Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Broad posture management across every resource type, runtime detection, attack-path analysis, and usually agent-based workload protection. Built for a security team that owns the environment and needs continuous coverage of all of it.
A scanner
Trivy, Kubescape, Polaris, kube-score, Prowler. Free, excellent, and focused on detection. They tell you what is wrong right now, in their own output format, with no memory of what they told you last month.
A penetration test
A time-boxed adversarial exercise by people. It finds things configuration analysis cannot, produces a report at a point in time, and says nothing about whether the findings were fixed three months later.
An assurance platform
What this is. It does not compete on detection breadth. It runs the same engines, then adds the accountability layer: stable finding identity, an owner and a deadline per finding, verified closure, regression detection, and evidence an auditor accepts.
Side by side
What each one actually gives you.
Read the columns as complements rather than alternatives. The rows where QubeAuditor is weaker are as informative as the rows where it is stronger.
| QubeAuditor | CNAPP platform | Scanners you run | Your vendor's report | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detection breadth | Containers and their cloud accounts: Kubernetes, Azure container services, AWS ECS and ECR | Broadest. Every resource type across multiple clouds | Whatever engines you deploy and maintain | Whatever they chose to run |
| Runtime protection | None. Assessment is read-only | Yes, usually agent-based with eBPF detection | None | Varies, and rarely stated |
| Admission control and enforcement | None. The agent has no write path | Yes | Available separately through other tools | Not applicable |
| Independence from the operator | Yes. Designed for estates a third party runs | No. Normally operated by the same team that runs the environment | No. You or your provider run them | No. Written by the party being assessed |
| Stable finding identity across scans | Deterministic key from the check and the resource | Usually, within the platform | No. Each run is independent output | No |
| Accountable owner and deadline per finding | Vendor and owner assignment with per-severity SLA policies and breach detection | Ticket integration, usually without vendor attribution | Whatever you build | Rarely |
| Verified fix, not just closed ticket | The next scan looks for that finding key specifically and records verified or regressed | Varies by platform | You would have to build the comparison | No |
| Explicit unassessed state | Yes. A check that cannot run is never a pass | Varies. Coverage gaps are not always surfaced | Depends on the engine | Almost never |
| Audit deliverables | DOCX assessment, PPTX executive deck, evidence pack with SHA-256 manifest and a missing-artifact list | Dashboards and exports. Reports are usually a secondary concern | Raw JSON you format yourself | A document, of unknown reproducibility |
| Where data lives | Inside your environment or one you control, in the primary model | Vendor SaaS, usually | Wherever you put it | Their systems |
| Commercial shape | Bounded baseline engagement, then recurring managed assurance | Annual platform subscription, usually consumption-scaled | Free software, your staff time | Included in the managed service fee |
The rows where the CNAPP column wins are not oversights. A platform that says it is best at everything is telling you it has not thought about where it stops.
The decision
When this is worth buying, and when it is not.
The uncomfortable version, because a mismatched engagement wastes your budget and our delivery capacity equally.
Worth a conversation if
- A third party operates your Kubernetes, Azure container or AWS ECS estate and also writes your security reporting
- You have an audit, a NIS2 request or a vendor handover with a date attached
- You have findings from a previous assessment and no way to prove which ones were actually fixed
- You run Azure Container Apps, Container Instances or Dynamic Session Pools, which most tooling does not assess as first-class services
- You need evidence for a supplier conversation, not another dashboard for your own team
Probably not for you if
- You need runtime threat detection or workload protection, where a CNAPP is the correct purchase
- You need admission control or policy enforcement in the cluster
- Your estate is mainly GCP, which is not a supported target
- You operate your own infrastructure and already maintain the layer between scanner output and audit evidence
- You want self-service signup and a free trial, neither of which exists here
Together
What running both actually looks like.
The common configuration among the organisations this is built for is a CNAPP kept in place and an assurance layer added over the estates somebody else operates.
The CNAPP keeps its job
Continuous posture across every resource, runtime detection, and alerting for the security team that owns the environment. Nothing about adding an assurance layer changes that.
Assurance covers the outsourced part
The estates your supplier runs get an assessment your supplier does not control, with findings attributed to them and re-tested on a cadence you set.
The evidence pack is the artifact
What goes to the auditor or the board is generated once from scan state: what was assessed, by which engine at which version, what failed, what was accepted, and what was never assessed.
Questions
Comparison questions
Is QubeAuditor a Wiz alternative?
We already run Trivy and Kubescape. What does this add?
How is this different from Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
Is this a replacement for a penetration test?
Why would we not just ask our provider for their security report?
Read next
- The accountability layer in detail
Deterministic finding keys, the lifecycle states, scan-to-scan comparison and how an evidence pack is assembled.
- Why a posture score is not audit evidence
What an auditor asks for, and why a compliance percentage does not answer it.
- The Azure services most tools skip
Container Apps, Container Instances and Dynamic Session Pools, assessed as first-class services.
- Running assurance across a client base
For providers who already run scanners for clients and want the layer that makes it renewable.
Or start with something you already have
Bring one recent security report from the vendor operating your estate. We will map how many of its findings have an accountable owner, a verification state, and evidence you could hand to an auditor.
Book a baseline assessmentContact
Book a baseline assessment
Tell us what you run and who operates it. We will come back with a scope, a timeline and a fixed price for one estate.