Had a huge debate over this question and wanted more opinions from historians.
Edit: I'm a high school senior, and the debate extends from a disagreement I had with my AP World History teacher sophomore year. We still discuss this question (her believing it is not an example of containment, my belief that it is a prime example), and I would like other opinions to show her on the last day of school.
I think it's a great example of containment. Interfering with Hungary which was already a communist country would be considered an offensive move against the USSR, and the whole point of containment was only to not let it spread because eventually Communism as a system would have to fail those countries without the acquisition of more resources. Eisenhower's foreign policy was for sure more aggressive than Truman's, but it was only a more aggressive form of containment. No part of it was actually offensive as that could actually provoke war.
A similar example is seen in the Korean War when MacArthur's army was strong enough to continue moving forward and into China, but Truman wanted to avoid at all costs provoking further war with China or for USSR to enter into the conflict. Thus, the treaty settling at the 38th parallel was a success for him despite popular opinion's contrary analysis.