Cybersecurity · head to head
Falco vs Resolver
Falco
Cybersecurity
CNCF-graduated runtime threat detection for Linux and Kubernetes using eBPF
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Resolver
Cybersecurity
Risk, incident and investigations platform for corporate security and operational risk teams, owned by Kroll
- 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.; Resolver kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.
- They diverge on capability: Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, Resolver covers Incident management.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Falco and Resolver actually diverge.
Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cybersecurity).
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 Resolver
- Incident management
- Investigations
- Enterprise risk management
- Internal audit
- Compliance and obligations
- Business continuity
- Risk Event Management
- Configurable dashboards
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 Resolver
- A regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on Kubernetes nodes for an auditnot Resolver
- A security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agentnot Resolver
- A cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch itnot Resolver
Resolver
- A national retailer consolidating store incident reporting, loss prevention cases and investigations into one system with defensible evidence handlingnot Falco
- A bank that needs operational risk events captured against a risk and control register rather than in spreadsheets and emailnot Falco
- A university security operations centre running dispatch, case management and clery-style reporting from a single recordnot Falco
- An organisation that already retains Kroll for investigations and wants case intake and vendor handoff in the same platformnot 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.
Resolver
- Kroll ownership since 2022 means the product is sold alongside risk consulting services, so buyers who want software with no services attach should expect that conversation and should price the licence separately in negotiation.
- Configuration flexibility comes at the cost of implementation time, with deployments commonly running several months and typically requiring vendor or partner services, so the first-year cost is well above the annual licence.
- Module-based pricing means the platform gets expensive quickly once you add audit, compliance and continuity to a security-led purchase, and modules bought later rarely carry the discount of the original deal.
- The IT and cyber compliance side is thinner than dedicated tools, so organisations chasing SOC 2 or ISO 27001 evidence automation will find it does not replace a Drata or Vanta.
- Reporting is capable but the drag and drop builder has a real learning curve, and organisations that do not train an internal administrator end up raising support tickets for changes that should be self-service.
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
Resolver
On request- Resolver Core$undefined/year
- Priced by modules selected and number of users
- Annual or multi-year enterprise agreement
- Implementation and configuration quoted separately
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 Resolver if
- You need incident management.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android.
- You also want investigations.
Questions people ask
- Is Falco or Resolver better?
- Neither clearly leads. Falco starts at Free and Resolver at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Falco or Resolver?
- Falco has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Falco and On request for Resolver.
- Does Falco or Resolver run on more platforms?
- Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. Resolver runs on Web, iOS, Android.
- Can I use Falco for free?
- Yes. Falco has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Resolver 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 Resolver is typically brought in for.
- What can Falco do that Resolver cannot?
- Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set. Resolver covers Incident management, Investigations, Enterprise risk management, Internal audit.
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.
Resolver: Who owns Resolver?
Kroll, which acquired it in 2022. It is marketed as a Kroll business and sold alongside Kroll risk and investigations services.
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.
Resolver: What does Resolver cost?
Pricing is not published. It is quoted by module and user count on an annual or multi-year enterprise agreement, with implementation charged separately.
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.
Resolver: Is Resolver a SOC 2 compliance tool?
No. It is a risk, incident and investigations platform. Automated evidence collection for security certifications is not its strength.
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.
Resolver: How long does implementation take?
Months rather than weeks for a multi-module deployment, and most customers use vendor or partner services to configure it.
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 LogicManager
- Falco vs Diligent
- Falco vs MetricStream
- Falco vs NICE Actimize
- Falco vs Omada Identity
- Falco vs Sardine
- Falco vs Silent Eight
- Falco vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Falco vs OneTrust
- Falco vs Rhombus Systems
- Falco vs Trulioo
- Falco vs ESET NOD32 Antivirus
- Falco vs ExpressVPN
- Falco vs Fenergo
- Falco vs Google Authenticator
- Falco vs Grype
- Resolver vs Snyk
- Resolver vs Teleport
- Resolver vs Darktrace
- Resolver vs LogRhythm SIEM
- Resolver vs Trend Micro Vision One
- Resolver vs Cybereason Defense Platform
- Resolver vs Splunk Enterprise Security
- Resolver vs WireGuard
- Resolver vs Bitwarden
- Resolver vs Infisical
- Resolver vs Semgrep
- Resolver vs Trivy
- Resolver vs One Identity
- Resolver vs Ory Kratos
- Resolver vs OWASP ZAP
- Resolver vs Palo Alto Networks Prisma Cloud
- Resolver vs Passbolt
- Resolver vs Ping Identity
- Resolver vs LogicManager
- Resolver vs Diligent
- Resolver vs MetricStream
- Resolver vs NICE Actimize
- Resolver vs Omada Identity
- Resolver vs Sardine
- Resolver vs Silent Eight
- Resolver vs Varonis Data Security Platform
- Resolver vs OneTrust
- Resolver vs Rhombus Systems
- Resolver vs Trulioo
- Resolver vs ESET NOD32 Antivirus
- Resolver vs ExpressVPN
- Resolver vs Fenergo
- Resolver vs Google Authenticator
- Resolver vs Grype