Cybersecurity · head to head
Falco vs Qovery

Falco
Cybersecurity
CNCF-graduated runtime threat detection for Linux and Kubernetes using eBPF
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -

Qovery
Cloud
Deployment platform that provisions and operates Kubernetes inside your own cloud account
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Only Falco has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
- Each has a real cost: Falco falco detects and alerts but does not block; stopping an attack requires wiring up Falco Talon or your own response tooling, so out of the box a confirmed detection still means a human intervening after the fact.; Qovery no plan publishes a price, deployment minute overage rates are not disclosed, and there is a 14 day trial rather than a free tier, so you cannot budget or compare against alternatives without going through sales.
- They diverge on capability: Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, Qovery covers Bring your own cloud.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Falco and Qovery actually diverge.
Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated).
What each one covers
Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.
Only in Falco
- eBPF kernel instrumentation
- System call rules engine
- Container and Kubernetes context
- Default rule set
- Falcosidekick
- Falco Talon
- Plugins framework
- DaemonSet deployment
Only in Qovery
- Bring your own cloud
- Preview environments
- Cluster lifecycle
- Terraform provider
- MCP server
- Policy as code
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Falco
- A platform team that needs to know when a shell is opened inside a production container, which image scanning cannot detect because it happens at runtimenot Qovery
- A regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on Kubernetes nodes for an auditnot Qovery
- A security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agentnot Qovery
- A cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch itnot Qovery
Qovery
- A regulated business that must keep application data inside its own AWS account but has nobody to build a deployment platformnot Falco
- Giving twenty engineers preview environments per pull request without writing and maintaining Terraform and Helm by handnot Falco
- Standardising deployment across AWS and GCP when acquisitions have left the organisation on two cloudsnot Falco
- Replacing a managed platform when data residency rules put every hosted option out of reachnot Falco
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Falco
- Falco detects and alerts but does not block; stopping an attack requires wiring up Falco Talon or your own response tooling, so out of the box a confirmed detection still means a human intervening after the fact.
- The default rule set is noisy in real clusters and generates a large volume of benign matches from normal operational activity; without weeks of tuning, alert fatigue sets in and the team stops reading the feed, which is the usual failure mode.
- There is no storage, console, search or case management in the project, so a working detection capability means also running Falcosidekick, an event store, a dashboard and alert routing, all of which you build, host and maintain.
- The modern eBPF driver requires kernel 5.8 or later; older hosts fall back to the legacy probe or the kernel module, which brings driver-building against kernel headers and the operational fragility that comes with it on every kernel upgrade.
- Per-node syscall instrumentation carries measurable CPU overhead on busy hosts, and the cost scales with syscall volume rather than with cluster size, so the noisiest and most performance-sensitive workloads are exactly the ones that feel it most.
Qovery
- No plan publishes a price, deployment minute overage rates are not disclosed, and there is a 14 day trial rather than a free tier, so you cannot budget or compare against alternatives without going through sales.
- The GPL-3.0 engine and console do not constitute a self-hostable product, because the control plane and API are closed and the self-hosted option is gated behind Enterprise, so the open licence gives you no exit if the company changes direction.
- Qovery provisions managed Kubernetes into your account, which means the cloud bill sits on top of the licence and Qovery initiates control plane and ingress controller upgrades on infrastructure your team is accountable for.
- The company repositioned to agentic infrastructure in June 2026 and now ships a deployment platform, a browser development portal and autonomous coding agents concurrently, so a buyer of the deployment product is not at the centre of the roadmap.
- Team and Business are capped at two and three connected clusters with fixed 4 vCPU CI runners and no single sign-on on Team, which pushes teams of moderate size onto quoted Enterprise pricing earlier than the plan names imply.
Pricing, plan by plan
Falco
Free- Falco (open source)Free
- Apache 2.0 licence, CNCF graduated project
- eBPF and kernel module drivers
- Full rules engine and default rule set
Qovery
On request- Team$undefined/year
- Billed on usage with no published rate card
- 10 users, up to 100 environments, 2 connected clusters
- 5,000 deployment minutes and 7 day audit logs
- Business$undefined/year
- Billed on usage with no published rate card
- 20 users, up to 250 environments, 3 connected clusters
- 10,000 deployment minutes and 30 day audit logs
- Enterprise$undefined/year
- Custom users, environments and clusters
- Self-hosted or air-gapped control plane
- On-premises and bring-your-own-Kubernetes
Which should you pick?
Choose Falco if
- You need ebpf kernel instrumentation.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
- You also want system call rules engine.
Choose Qovery if
- You need bring your own cloud.
- You work on Web, CLI, REST API, Kubernetes.
- You also want preview environments.
Questions people ask
- Is Falco or Qovery better?
- Neither clearly leads. Falco starts at Free and Qovery at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Falco or Qovery?
- Falco has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Falco and On request for Qovery.
- Does Falco or Qovery run on more platforms?
- Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. Qovery runs on Web, CLI, REST API, Kubernetes.
- Can I use Falco for free?
- Yes. Falco has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Qovery starts at On request.
- What is Falco best used for?
- Falco is most often used for a platform team that needs to know when a shell is opened inside a production container, which image scanning cannot detect because it happens at runtime, a regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on kubernetes nodes for an audit, a security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agent, a cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch it. Of those, a platform team that needs to know when a shell is opened inside a production container, which image scanning cannot detect because it happens at runtime and a regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on kubernetes nodes for an audit are not what Qovery is typically brought in for.
- What can Falco do that Qovery cannot?
- Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set. Qovery covers Bring your own cloud, Preview environments, Cluster lifecycle, Terraform provider.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Falco: Does Falco block attacks?
No. It detects and emits events. Response requires Falco Talon or your own automation on top.
Qovery: Does Qovery run my applications on its own servers?
No. It provisions and operates Kubernetes inside your AWS, GCP, Azure or Scaleway account, so compute and data stay with your cloud provider and that bill is entirely separate from the Qovery licence.
Falco: Is Falco owned by Sysdig?
Sysdig created and open sourced it, but it graduated within the CNCF in February 2024, so governance sits with the foundation rather than the vendor.
Qovery: Can I self-host Qovery?
Only on Enterprise. The deployment engine and console are GPL-3.0, but the control plane is closed source and the self-hosted and air-gapped deployments are commercial Enterprise features.
Falco: What does it cost?
The project is Apache 2.0 with no licence fee. The cost is the storage, routing, tuning and staff time needed to make its output useful.
Qovery: What does it cost?
Qovery does not publish a rate card. Team and Business are billed on usage and quoted through sales, and Enterprise is fully custom. There is a 14 day trial with no card required.
Falco: What kernel version do I need?
Kernel 5.8 or later for the default modern eBPF driver. Older hosts need the legacy eBPF probe or the kernel module.
Qovery: What survives if I stop paying?
The Kubernetes cluster and the workloads keep running in your cloud account, but you lose the console, the deployment pipeline, preview environments and every process built on top of them.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Falco vs Snyk
- Falco vs Teleport
- Falco vs Darktrace
- Falco vs LogRhythm SIEM
- Falco vs Trend Micro Vision One
- Falco vs Cybereason Defense Platform
- Falco vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Falco vs WireGuard
- Falco vs Bitwarden
- Falco vs Infisical
- Falco vs Semgrep
- Falco vs Trivy
- Falco vs One Identity
- Falco vs Ory Kratos
- Falco vs OWASP ZAP
- Falco vs Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud
- Falco vs Passbolt
- Falco vs Ping Identity
- Falco vs Render
- Falco vs Porter
- Falco vs Northflank
- Falco vs CapRover
- Falco vs Coolify
- Falco vs Railway
- Falco vs Dokku
- Falco vs Scaleway
- Falco vs Portworx
- Falco vs Podman
- Falco vs containerd
- Falco vs Encore
- Falco vs Oracle Cloud
- Falco vs Orca Security
- Falco vs Packer
- Falco vs OpenTelemetry
- Falco vs Rook
- Qovery vs Snyk
- Qovery vs Teleport
- Qovery vs Darktrace
- Qovery vs LogRhythm SIEM
- Qovery vs Trend Micro Vision One
- Qovery vs Cybereason Defense Platform
- Qovery vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Qovery vs WireGuard
- Qovery vs Bitwarden
- Qovery vs Infisical
- Qovery vs Semgrep
- Qovery vs Trivy
- Qovery vs One Identity
- Qovery vs Ory Kratos
- Qovery vs OWASP ZAP
- Qovery vs Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud
- Qovery vs Passbolt
- Qovery vs Ping Identity
- Qovery vs Render
- Qovery vs Porter
- Qovery vs Northflank
- Qovery vs CapRover
- Qovery vs Coolify
- Qovery vs Railway
- Qovery vs Dokku
- Qovery vs Scaleway
- Qovery vs Portworx
- Qovery vs Podman
- Qovery vs containerd
- Qovery vs Encore
- Qovery vs Oracle Cloud
- Qovery vs Orca Security
- Qovery vs Packer
- Qovery vs OpenTelemetry
- Qovery vs Rook
