Anjuna Seaglass vs Aqua Security Runtime Protection: 2026 Comparison

Anjuna Seaglass

Enterprise and mid-market teams protecting sensitive workloads from insider threats and memory-based attacks will find Anjuna Seaglass valuable because it encrypts data in-use via hardware enclaves, not just at rest or in transit. The no-code wrapping approach means you can move existing containerized apps into Confidential Containers without rewriting application code, and multi-cloud deployment across AWS, Azure, and GCP reduces vendor lock-in. This is not for teams whose primary concern is preventing initial compromise or lateral movement; Seaglass assumes the container already runs and focuses on what happens inside it, leaving your CNAPP and network detection work largely unchanged.

Aqua Security Runtime Protection

Organizations running containers and Kubernetes across multiple clouds need Aqua Security Runtime Protection because its kernel-level eBPF detection catches fileless attacks and zero-days that signature-based tools miss entirely. The platform's process lineage tracking lets you trace attack paths backward, critical for incident response when you're already compromised; it covers four workload types (containers, VMs, Kubernetes, serverless) under one policy engine, which cuts configuration drift compared to point solutions. Skip this if your team lacks the container expertise to tune behavioral detection rules or if you need strong compliance reporting; Aqua prioritizes runtime detection and incident tracing over the audit-heavy NIST Respond functions some regulated shops demand.