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 product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"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 security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"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 automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"One of the features that I like about the solution is it is both a hybrid cloud and also multi-cloud. We never know what company we're going to buy, and therefore we are ready to go. If they have GCP or AWS, we have support for that as well. It offers a single-panel blast across multiple clouds."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"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 most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"It has the best EDR functionality for cloud and typical endpoints."
"The the most valuable feature is the scanning engine. It does not impact server performance. It's very lightweight."
"The security is good."
"The most valuable features are intrusion prevention and anti-malware capabilities."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's best features are security analysis, remote access security, and driver security."
"Detection response and cloud conformity are valuable features."
"Vision One is versatile and can be integrated with many SIEMs. You're not limited to only one SIEM, such as Microsoft Sentinel. The API integrations are seamless, and we have all the documentation needed to integrate Vision One via API."
"The product helps us understand our environment better."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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 reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"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."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"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 licensing model could be improved. To gain full coverage, you need to spend more to buy subscriptions for each kind of service they offer. It will start to be pricey if you want full coverage."
"The pricing can get high."
"The initial setup can be complex for the inexperienced."
"The firewall configuration should have been automated based on the understanding of the application, utilities, and protocols."
"The dashboard should be a bit more intuitive."
"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."
"They should provide a way for users to see violations for specific compliance."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security seems to have a preference for AWS Cloud over Azure and would be improved by focusing equally on both."
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.