Tetragon vs KubeArmor (2026): eBPF or LSM Enforcement

If you are choosing a Kubernetes runtime enforcement tool in 2026, the decision often comes down to Tetragon vs KubeArmor. Unlike the Falco vs KubeArmor choice, this is not detect versus prevent - both of these tools enforce inline at the kernel level. The real question is mechanism: eBPF-native visibility and enforcement, or LSM-powered least-permissive policy. This post draws that line clearly.

The short answer

• Tetragon - pick this when you want eBPF-deep observability and enforcement. It instruments the kernel through kprobes and tracepoints for rich visibility into process execution, file, and network events, filters in-kernel, and can kill or block at the syscall level with low overhead. Best when you want deep event context, especially if you already run Cilium for networking.
• KubeArmor - pick this when you want LSM-based policy hardening. It uses Linux Security Modules to enforce least-permissive policies that restrict process execution, file access, and network behavior inline, with a straightforward security-policy model. Best when you want a clean policy-hardening posture built on the mature LSM stack.
• Both - you can, but most teams standardize on one enforcement engine rather than run two inline agents on the same nodes. If you do combine them, scope each to different workloads or concerns and keep their policies from conflicting.

The rest of this post unpacks that decision in detail.

Deciding factor to pick

Match your priority to the recommendation. This is the Tetragon vs KubeArmor decision in one table:

If you only remember one rule: Tetragon is eBPF-deep observability plus enforcement, KubeArmor is LSM-based least-permissive policy enforcement.

What each tool is

• Tetragon is a CNCF runtime security tool that is part of the Cilium project (created by Isovalent, now part of Cisco). It is eBPF-native: it uses kprobes and tracepoints to get deep kernel visibility into process execution, file, and network events, filters in-kernel, and can enforce inline by killing or blocking at the syscall level - all with low overhead. It does both observability and prevention from a single eBPF-based agent.
• KubeArmor is a CNCF sandbox runtime security tool maintained by AccuKnox. It uses Linux Security Modules (AppArmor, BPF-LSM, SELinux) to enforce least-permissive policies that restrict process execution, file access, and network behavior inline - actual prevention - and it adds eBPF-based observability on top. Its draw is a straightforward security-policy model for hardening workloads.

Tetragon vs KubeArmor: head-to-head

When to choose Tetragon

Pick Tetragon when:

• You want eBPF-deep visibility into process execution, file access, and network events with rich kernel-level context.
• You already run Cilium and want runtime security that shares the same eBPF foundation and networking synergy.
• You need syscall-level enforcement - the ability to kill a process or block an action in-kernel with low overhead.
• You value in-kernel filtering so you collect and act on exactly the events you care about, without flooding userspace.
• You want observability and enforcement from one eBPF-native agent rather than separate tools.
• Your team is comfortable in the eBPF and Cilium ecosystem and wants the depth that comes with it.

When to choose KubeArmor

Pick KubeArmor when:

• You want least-permissive policy enforcement that constrains process, file, and network behavior on your workloads.
• You prefer enforcement built on the mature Linux Security Modules stack (AppArmor, BPF-LSM, SELinux).
• You want a straightforward security-policy model that is easy to author, read, and reason about.
• You are hardening specific high-value workloads and want a clean way to lock down expected behavior.
• You want inline prevention plus eBPF observability without committing to the broader Cilium ecosystem.
• You value a policy-first posture where the security model, not the tracing depth, is the center of gravity.

Can you use them together?

You can, but it is less common than running one enforcement engine. Two inline-enforcement agents on the same nodes add overhead and policy-management complexity, and their policies can conflict if you are not careful. When teams do combine them, the split usually looks like this:

• Tetragon for eBPF-deep observability and syscall-level enforcement on Cilium-managed services where you want rich event context and networking synergy.
• KubeArmor for LSM-based hardening on specific high-value workloads where a least-permissive policy model is the cleaner fit.

Test in observe or audit mode before enforcing either, and make sure the two are scoped to different workloads or concerns so they do not fight over the same actions. If your real question is detection rather than enforcement, it is worth reading Falco vs KubeArmor too - Falco only detects and alerts, which is a different layer from what either of these tools does.

Cost comparison

Neither tool has a license fee - both core engines are fully open-source (Apache 2.0) and self-hosted as DaemonSets. The real cost is operational, and it differs by model.

• Tetragon costs you in tuning tracing policies and managing the volume of detailed eBPF event data it can produce, plus the learning curve if you are not already in the Cilium ecosystem. Its spend shows up as event-pipeline plumbing and the effort to scope policies to the signal you actually need.
• KubeArmor costs you in policy engineering. Least-permissive enforcement only works if your policies block real threats without breaking legitimate behavior, and authoring and tuning those policies takes deliberate effort and good knowledge of expected workload behavior.

There is no invented price difference here - both are open-source. The spend is in the human time around them, not in the software. Standard cost controls apply: scope Tetragon tracing policies to keep event volume signal-rich, and roll out KubeArmor policies in audit mode before flipping them to block so you do not break production.

Common pitfalls

• Treating this like detect versus prevent - both Tetragon and KubeArmor enforce inline. That framing belongs to Falco vs KubeArmor, not here. Choose on mechanism and ecosystem instead.
• Enforcing before you understand normal behavior - turning on blocking too early breaks legitimate traffic. Start in observe or audit mode, learn the baseline, then enforce.
• Running two enforcement agents without scoping - stacking Tetragon and KubeArmor on the same workloads adds overhead and risks conflicting policies. Standardize on one, or scope each to distinct concerns.
• Underestimating eBPF event volume - Tetragon can produce a firehose of detailed events. Without in-kernel filtering tuned to what you care about, the pipeline cost balloons.
• Ignoring ecosystem fit - picking Tetragon without Cilium, or KubeArmor when you wanted eBPF-deep context, means fighting the tool. Match the choice to the platform you already run.

Related

• Compliance features - how kubeqa maps runtime and config posture to CIS and compliance baselines
• Falco vs KubeArmor - the detection-versus-enforcement contrast, since Falco only detects while both tools here enforce
• Kubernetes QA tools comparison - the full landscape of scanning, compliance, and gating tools

Runtime enforcement is one layer of cluster health - you still need config scanning, CIS compliance, and deployment gates around it. kubeqa pairs runtime awareness with health checks, compliance mapping, and admission gates behind one score in a single free CLI, so you are not stitching five tools together by hand.

brew install nomadx-ae/tap/kubeqa

Star kubeqa on GitHub if it saves you time.