We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. AWS Security Hub is highly valued for its integration capabilities, real-time alert capabilities, and comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. Microsoft Defender for Cloud needs work in consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, and protection. Meanwhile, AWS Security Hub requires more integration options, a better user interface, self-sufficiency, multi-cloud compatibility, and faster updates and integration.
Service and Support: Some users have had positive experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, while others have encountered issues with outsourced support, slow response times, and difficulty reaching the appropriate level of support. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been characterized as prompt and satisfactory by clients.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and AWS Security Hub have fairly easy and straightforward initial setup processes. Microsoft Defender for Cloud may require some prior knowledge, but it generally takes less than 24 hours to deploy. Maintenance for both solutions is minimal, with AWS Security Hub requiring little to no maintenance after deployment. However, policies still need to be configured for AWS Security Hub during setup.
Pricing: M Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing depends on the license and metrics used, while AWS Security Hub's pricing is considered reasonable. Reviewers generally find Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing to be fair and cost-effective, but note that it may not be suitable for small businesses due to cost. AWS Security Hub's pricing is viewed as satisfactory, although there is some ambiguity for those not part of the central team.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is user-friendly and cost-effective, while AWS Security Hub has been beneficial for users.
Comparison Results: According to user feedback, Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option when compared to AWS Security Hub. It offers more comprehensive features, such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, and UEBA features that are important for cloud environments. Although AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, users suggest it could benefit from more integration options with open-source cloud security solutions and improvements to the user interface.
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"Easily integrates with third-party tools"
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easy to manage...It is a scalable solution."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"When you have commissioned Defender, you have these things visible already on your dashboard. This gives the efficiency to the people to do their actual work rather than bothering about the email, sorting out the email, or looking at it through an ITSM solution, whey they have to look at the description and use cases. Efficiency increases with this optimized, ready-made solution since you don't need to invest in something externally. You can start using the dashboard and auditing capability provided from day one. Thus, you have fewer costs with a more optimized, easier-to-use solution, providing operational efficiency for your team."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"The telemetry doesn't always go into the control center. When you have multiple instances running in AWS, you need a control tower to take feeds from Security Hub and analyze your results. Sometimes exemptions aren't passed between the control tower and Security Hub. The configuration gets mixed up or you don't get the desired results."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"One aspect that could be improved in the solution is its adaptability to different markets and geopolitical restrictions. In certain regions like Thailand, specific services from certain countries or providers, such as AWS or Azure, might be limited or blocked. It also needs improvement in would require configuring the solution more adaptable to AWS infrastructure and function."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"The solution lacks self-sufficiency."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"The product must improve its UI."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
"Microsoft sources most of their threat intelligence internally, but I think they should open themselves up to bodies that provide feel intelligence to build a better engine. There may be threats out there that they don't report because their team is not doing anything on that and they don't have arrangements with another party that is involved in that research."
"When you work with it, the only problem that we're struggling with is that we have 21 different subscriptions we're trying to apply security to. It's impossible to keep everything organized."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 17 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Google Chronicle Suite and Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Wazuh. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
