Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Falco vs Transmit Security

Falco logo

Falco

Cybersecurity

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

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Transmit Security logo

Transmit Security

Cybersecurity

Customer identity platform built around passwordless and fraud signals

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.; Transmit Security pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
  • They diverge on capability: Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, Transmit Security covers Passwordless authentication.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Falco and Transmit Security actually diverge.

Attributes where Falco and Transmit Security differ
AttributeFalcoTransmit Security
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsLinux, Kubernetes, Self-hostedWeb, iOS, Android

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 Transmit Security

  • Passwordless authentication
  • Detection and response
  • Identity verification
  • Orchestration
  • Account recovery
  • Bot and automation detection
  • Composable APIs

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

Transmit Security

  • A bank moving a consumer base off passwords to passkeys without losing customers at the migration stepnot Falco
  • An insurer whose account recovery flow is the main account takeover route and needs risk scoring inside itnot Falco
  • A retailer that wants bot detection at login rather than only at checkoutnot Falco
  • An organisation replacing an in-house customer login system that has become an unfunded engineering liabilitynot 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.

Transmit Security

  • Pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
  • Migrating a live consumer identity base is a high risk project, and credential migration constraints mean some users must re-register, which shows up as measurable churn.
  • The vendor is smaller than the identity incumbents, so the partner and systems integrator pool is thinner and staffing a large programme is harder.
  • Workforce identity is not the focus, so an organisation wanting one vendor for employees and customers will still run two platforms.
  • The fraud detection value depends on traffic volume feeding the models, so a smaller deployment gets less benefit from exactly the capability that justified choosing it over a plain identity provider.

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

Transmit Security

On request
  • Transmit Security Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced per monthly active user or per transaction by service
    • Services licensed individually or as a platform
    • Free developer tier for evaluation

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 Transmit Security if

  • You need passwordless authentication.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want detection and response.
Transmit Security review

Questions people ask

Is Falco or Transmit Security better?
Neither clearly leads. Falco starts at Free and Transmit Security at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Falco or Transmit Security?
Falco has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Falco and On request for Transmit Security.
Does Falco or Transmit Security run on more platforms?
Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. Transmit Security runs on Web, iOS, Android.
Can I use Falco for free?
Yes. Falco has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Transmit Security 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 Transmit Security is typically brought in for.
What can Falco do that Transmit Security cannot?
Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set. Transmit Security covers Passwordless authentication, Detection and response, Identity verification, Orchestration.

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.

Transmit Security: Do we have to replace our existing identity provider?

No. The services are composable, so detection and response or verification can be adopted alongside an existing provider such as Okta or Entra ID.

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.

Transmit Security: Is fraud detection an extra licence?

It is a separate service, but it is designed to run inside the authentication flow rather than as a bolted-on second vendor. Confirm which services are in your quote.

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.

Transmit Security: Is there a way to try it?

Yes, a free developer tier exists for evaluation, though production use is an enterprise agreement.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on Falco

More on Transmit Security

Keep looking

Other head to heads