We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Trend Micro Cloud One 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 UEBA while Trend Micro Cloud One provides excellent vulnerability protection, login inspection, and container security. Microsoft Defender needs better consistency, customization, integration, and collaboration, as well as wider resource coverage and more intuitive features. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One needs improvements in pricing, automation, setup, licensing, and marketing documentation.
Service and Support: Users have had varying experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, with some encountering delays and challenges in accessing appropriate support. Conversely, Trend Micro Cloud One is largely praised for their support team's expertise and helpfulness.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud has a simple and quick setup process with minimal maintenance, while Trend Micro Cloud One's setup process is mixed and may require a team for optimal performance.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is seen as cost-effective compared to other products, while Trend Micro Cloud One is in the middle range. Trend Micro Cloud One also has additional services that can be paid for separately, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is bundled with other Microsoft solutions.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a cost-effective choice that improves security and saves time. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One is flexible, but the ROI is not as clear-cut.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trend Micro Cloud One due to its comprehensive features, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, incident alerts, and collaborative services. Trend Micro Cloud One offers useful features but is criticized for its high pricing, lack of automation, and complex initial setup.
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"The CSPM module has been the most effective. It was easy to deploy and covered all our accounts through APIs, requiring no agents. Wiz provides instant visibility into high-level risks that we need to address."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"I like Wiz's reporting, and it's easy to do queries. For example, it's pretty simple to find out how many servers we have and the applications installed on each. I like Wiz's security graph because you can use it to see the whole organization even if you have multiple accounts."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"The vulnerability reporting is helpful. When we initially deployed Defender, it reported many more threats than we currently see. It gave us insight into areas we had not previously considered, so we knew where we needed to act."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"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."
"We can create alerts that trigger if there is any malicious activity happening in the workflow and these alerts can be retrieved using the query language."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"The most valuable features are intrusion prevention and anti-malware capabilities."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security does not utilize a lot of resources which allows our users to keep working even during a scan."
"The perfect package for all security platforms, providing more than any other endpoint solution."
"The most valuable part of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is its dashboard, as it's simple. It's easy to manage, and you can better control the solution."
"I like the conformity and workload security modules. Workload security is all about intrusion detection and prevention. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security has behavioral rules that are auto-populated based on organizational structure. That's one aspect that we liked most."
"The product helps us understand our environment better."
"I really like Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's dashboard."
"The tech support is excellent. They really know their products. They also know a lot of about the integrations between different solutions."
"We would like to see improvements to executive-level reporting and data reporting in general, which we understand is being rolled out to the platform."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"Wiz's reporting capabilities could be refined a bit. They are making headway on that, but more executive-style dashboards would be nice. They just implemented a community aspect where you can share documents and feedback. This was something users had been requesting for a while. They are listening to customer feedback and making changes."
"We wish there were a way, beyond providing visibility and automated remediation, to wait on a given remediation, due to a critical aspect, such as the cost associated with a particular upgrade... We would like to see preventive controls that can be applied through Wiz to protect against vulnerabilities that we're not going to be able to remediate immediately."
"We're looking at some of the data compliance stuff that they've got Jon offer. I know they're looking at container security, which we gonna be looking at next."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."
"We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"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."
"Another thing is that Defender for Cloud uses more resources than CrowdStrike, which my current company uses. Defender for Cloud has two or three processes running simultaneously that consume memory and processor time. I had the chance to compare that with CrowdStrike a few days ago, which was significantly less. It would be nice if Defender were a little lighter. It's a relatively large installation that consumes more resources than competitors do."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
"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."
"The firewall configuration should have been automated based on the understanding of the application, utilities, and protocols."
"The local agent should be able to show more logs. At present, the logs are only available from the web console and not from the local agent."
"The dashboard should be a bit more intuitive."
"The pricing can get high."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security should address threats automatically without having user input."
"Documentation on cloud architecture and job architecture would be helpful."
"The initial setup can be complex for the inexperienced."
"The product could use a little bit of automation."
More Trend Vision One - Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is ranked 8th in Container Security with 17 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Vision One - Cloud Security writes "We can quickly deploy cloud conformity, provides good visibility, and control". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Orca Security, whereas Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS Security Hub and Orca Security. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.