Falco vs Tetragon: Runtime Security Tools Compared

Both detect runtime security threats. Tetragon is more modern; Falco is more battle-tested. Honest tradeoffs.

How each works

Falco: kernel module or eBPF probe; emits events on syscalls; rule engine flags threats.

Tetragon: pure eBPF; deeper kernel observability; supports active enforcement (kill processes inline).

Performance impact

• Falco: 1-3% CPU overhead at typical workloads.
• Tetragon: 0.5-2% with eBPF efficiency.
• Real-world: both are negligible at modern node sizes. Not the deciding factor.

Policy and enforcement

Falco: detection-only; rule violations emit events to Slack/SIEM.

Tetragon: detection + enforcement; can kill the process or block the syscall inline.

Enforcement is powerful and dangerous. Most teams start detection-only and graduate carefully.

Operational maturity

Falco: 5+ years in production; large rule library; mature SaaS integrations.

Tetragon: newer (Cilium-adjacent); smaller community but rapidly maturing.

Most teams pick Falco for now; Tetragon adoption is growing fast.

Antipatterns

• Active enforcement on day 1. Kill a critical process by mistake.
• Default rules without tuning. Alert flood; ignored.
• Both running in parallel. Double overhead; redundant alerts.

What to do this week

Three moves. (1) Trial the candidate tool against one workload for two weeks. (2) Compare against your current using the four criteria above. (3) Plan the migration only if the trial shows real wins, not theoretical ones.