Comparing "lightness" for cloud workload protection requires defining metrics. In Kubernetes, "light" means minimal CPU/memory overhead per node and per pod, plus efficient network/IO.
From a cost and performance perspective in K8s:
* **Agent footprint:** Both deploy daemonsets. Key data points:
* CPU/memory requests/limits per node.
* Does it require an agent per pod (sidecar) or just per node?
* Network egress volume for telemetry.
* **Operational overhead:** Complexity of the Helm chart, number of deployed pods (e.g., besides the node agent, are there additional collectors?), CRDs installed.
* **Scanning impact:** Scheduled vulnerability scans can spike node resource usage. Look for throttling controls.
Without vendor-specific numbers, here's what to audit in your cluster to compare any solution:
```bash
# Get resource requests/limits for all pods in a given namespace (e.g., security tools)
kubectl get pods -n -o=jsonpath='{range .items[*]}{.metadata.name}{"t"}{.spec.containers[*].resources}{"n"}{end}'
# Check the number of running pods and daemonsets they deploy
kubectl get daemonsets -n
kubectl get pods -n --field-selector=spec.nodeName=
```
Request the Helm charts from each vendor. Inspect the daemonset YAML. Compare the default resource blocks and the number of containers per pod. Test each in a staging cluster under load.
null