Anjuna Seaglass vs enclaive Buckypaper CVMs: Side-by-Side Comparison (2026)

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.

enclaive Buckypaper CVMs

Enterprise and mid-market teams handling regulated workloads or processing sensitive data in untrusted cloud environments should pick enclaive Buckypaper CVMs for hardware-enforced isolation that doesn't require rebuilding infrastructure. The 3% CPU overhead is legitimate; most confidential computing approaches tax performance far more heavily, and EU datacenter deployment with ISO 27001 and C5 compliance removes friction for regulated industries. Skip this if your threat model is insider threats alone or you lack the technical depth to manage hardware-backed enclaves; Buckypaper requires operators who understand confidential execution environments, not just VM operators.