Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Falco vs Teleport

Falco logo

Falco

Cybersecurity

CNCF-graduated runtime threat detection for Linux and Kubernetes using eBPF

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Teleport logo

Teleport

Cybersecurity

Certificate-based access to servers, Kubernetes, databases and apps, replacing shared credentials and VPNs

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

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.; Teleport pricing is not published and is described as active users plus protected resources, so an autoscaling estate cannot forecast the bill and finance teams discover the true cost only after the first true-up.
  • They diverge on capability: Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, Teleport covers Short-lived certificates.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Falco and Teleport actually diverge.

Attributes where Falco and Teleport differ
AttributeFalcoTeleport
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsLinux, Kubernetes, Self-hostedLinux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes, Cloud

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 Teleport

  • Short-lived certificates
  • Protocol coverage
  • Session recording and replay
  • Access Requests
  • Device Trust
  • Identity provider integration
  • Machine identity
  • FIPS and FedRAMP builds

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 Teleport
  • A regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on Kubernetes nodes for an auditnot Teleport
  • A security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agentnot Teleport
  • A cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch itnot Teleport

Teleport

  • Removing long-lived SSH keys and shared database passwords so that offboarding an engineer takes one action in the identity providernot Falco
  • Producing session recordings and per-user database audit trails as direct evidence for SOC 2 or FedRAMPnot Falco
  • Giving contractors or on-call engineers time-boxed, approved access to production instead of standing admin rightsnot Falco
  • Replacing a flat VPN with per-resource authorisation across servers, Kubernetes and internal web appsnot 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.

Teleport

  • Pricing is not published and is described as active users plus protected resources, so an autoscaling estate cannot forecast the bill and finance teams discover the true cost only after the first true-up.
  • The proxy is a hard dependency on reaching production, so it needs its own high availability deployment and a tested break-glass path or an outage in Teleport becomes an outage in your ability to respond to outages.
  • The open source Community Edition omits Access Requests, Device Trust and the FIPS builds, which are exactly the controls an auditor asks about, so the free tier rarely survives a compliance review.
  • Self-hosting means running and upgrading a certificate authority and its backing store, and Teleport releases frequently enough that upgrade work becomes a standing operational commitment.
  • Coverage across protocols is uneven in depth, so teams with legacy systems, unusual databases or bespoke network appliances find gaps that still require the old VPN to remain in place alongside it.

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

Teleport

On request
  • Teleport Community Edition$undefined/year
    • Open source, self-hosted
    • SSH, Kubernetes, database and app access
    • Session recording
  • Teleport Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Cloud-hosted or self-hosted
    • Access Requests and approval workflow
    • Device Trust and hardware key enforcement

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.
Falco review

Choose Teleport if

  • You need short-lived certificates.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want protocol coverage.
Teleport review

Questions people ask

Is Falco or Teleport better?
Neither clearly leads. Falco starts at Free and Teleport at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Falco or Teleport?
Falco has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Falco and On request for Teleport.
Does Falco or Teleport run on more platforms?
Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. Teleport runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Kubernetes, Cloud.
Can I use Falco for free?
Yes. Falco has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Teleport 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 Teleport is typically brought in for.
What can Falco do that Teleport cannot?
Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set. Teleport covers Short-lived certificates, Protocol coverage, Session recording and replay, Access Requests.

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.

Teleport: Is the open source edition usable in production?

Yes, but it lacks Access Requests, Device Trust and FIPS builds, which most compliance programmes end up requiring.

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.

Teleport: How is it priced?

Not publicly. The vendor prices on active users and protected resources and provides a quote after a sales conversation.

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.

Teleport: What happens if Teleport goes down?

Nobody reaches the resources behind it, so you need a highly available deployment and a documented break-glass procedure.

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.

Teleport: Does it replace our VPN?

For anything you put behind it, yes. Legacy systems and appliances it does not support will keep the VPN alive.

Share

Related pages

More on Falco

More on Teleport

Keep looking

Other head to heads