We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc 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 focuses on regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls, while also providing real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. On the other hand, Tenable.sc's strengths lie in accuracy in vulnerability detection, prioritization, automation, and risk-based approach. In terms of room for improvement, some users have cited issues with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's reporting capabilities and ease of use. On the other hand, Tenable.sc users have mentioned a need for more user-friendly interfaces and better integration with other security tools.
Service and Support: Some Microsoft Defender users faced challenges with slow response times and difficulty reaching the appropriate support level. Tenable.sc's support is generally positive, with some users finding it prompt and helpful, but others reporting delays and a lack of helpful information.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for both Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc is reportedly easy, with Microsoft's requiring less maintenance. However, the on-prem version of Tenable.sc can take longer to deploy and needs integration with other solutions.
Pricing: The cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud depends on the license and metrics, but is often seen as reasonable. Tenable.sc's pricing is based on the number of addresses to be scanned and can include extra costs for advanced support, leading to mixed opinions on its affordability.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc are two different tools that offer unique benefits. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has improved security measures and saved time, while Tenable.sc is useful for reducing the workload and has impressive reporting features.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option over Tenable.sc due to its comprehensive cloud environment features, including regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Tenable.sc has accurate vulnerability detection and a user-friendly interface, but it lacks some critical cloud environment features and has mixed reviews on customer support and pricing.
"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."
"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."
"It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it."
"It is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"This is a platform as a service provided by Azure. We don't need to install or maintain Azure Security Center. It is a ready-made service available in Azure. This is one of the main things that we like. If you look at similar tools, we have to install, maintain, and update services. Whereas, Azure Security Center manages what we are using. This is a good feature that has helped us a lot."
"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."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"Tenable Security Center scans networks and gives reports."
"The tool's dashboard and reporting capabilities match our company's needs since we are able to modify the basic view to create a new dashboard, and it works out very well for our needs."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"Tenable also helps us to focus resources on the vulnerabilities that are most likely to be exploited. And since it is continuously updated, it allows us to reevaluate quickly if there are new vulnerabilities found..."
"I find Tenable SC to be a very scalable product."
"This solution has a much lower rate of false positives compared to competing products."
"Compliance and vulnerability scans are most valuable. Compliance scan helps in validating how our teams are complying, and vulnerability scan helps in future-proofing. Its vulnerability detection is accurate."
"The product is our second solution, and we are happy that it meets our requirements."
"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."
"One of the main challenges that we have been facing with Azure Security Center is the cost. The costs are really a complex calculation, e.g., to calculate the monthly costs. Azure is calculating on an hourly basis for use of the resource. Because of this, we found it really complex to promote what will be our costs for the next couple of months. I think if Azure could reduce the complex calculation and come up with straightforward cost mapping that would be very useful from a product point of view."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward."
"Consistency is the area where the most improvement is needed. For example, there are some areas where the UI is not uniform across the board."
"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."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
"The tool's initial configuration is not so easy."
"Though the solution's technical support is responsive, they do take a lot of time, making it one of the solution's shortcomings that needs improvement."
"I will say it's a lot slower compared to an MS scan. It takes so much longer, so the performance could definitely be worked on."
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
"The solution needs to improve the vulnerability assessment because we have experienced some challenges with accuracy."
"If I want to have a very low-managed scan policy, it's a lot of work to create something which is very basic. If I use a tool like Nmap, all I have to do is download it, install it, type in the command, and it's good to go. In Security Center, I have to go through a lot of work to create a policy that's very basic."
"The solution should include compliance-based scanning."
"The product should provide risk-based vulnerability management."
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 7th in Vulnerability Management with 46 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Rapid7 InsightVM, Tenable Nessus and Cisco Vulnerability Management (formerly Kenna.VM). See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.
