We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management 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 includes regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and UEBA, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides granular level reports, governance and administration portal panel, and comprehensive security features for data governance. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has room for improvement in consistency, customization, automation, and integration, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management needs expanded reporting options, reduced price, and better integration with third-party software.
Service and Support: Both Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management have received mixed reviews for their customer service, with some users reporting positive experiences and others facing frustration or stating that technical support needs improvement.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is easy to set up and does not require infrastructure deployment, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management may be more complicated and require vendor support or multiple administrators. Both solutions are user-friendly.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers a range of license options with varying metrics, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's pricing is based on the size of the cloud infrastructure. Check Point's setup cost is affordable and easy, but some reviewers express concern that Microsoft Defender for Cloud may be too costly for small or startup businesses.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides basic security features that may or may not provide a good ROI depending on the company's needs. On the other hand, Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers a high ROI growth rate along with essential compliance and asset protection.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management due to its valuable features such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is also more automated and easier to use, with incident alerts and collaborative services.
"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."
"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 first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"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."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"It learns from behavior, attacks, management, detections, captures packets, real-time analysis, et cetera. It's generating knowledge from a variety of sources for an excellent analysis."
"Cloud security posture management is the feature we've been using the longest."
"It has an analytics service that does research for us."
"It provides critical insights that enable the IT team to plan and launch smart investigations when there are security breaches."
"People implementing this solution are concerned with addressing a significant risk, and within the AWS realm, this tool does de-risk substantially."
"This solution provides threat prevention and detection of anomalies automatically and investigates the activity of each one of them."
"The reporting is quite good. It is the most powerful aspect of this solution."
"The tool is also very intuitive; its dashboards are very complete and provide a lot of valuable information for decision-making to improve security."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"Good compliance policies."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"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."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz 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'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."
"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 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."
"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."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"We have had some issues with the performance. In some cases, the performance of CloudGuard CNAPP is impacted. Particularly during the intensive security scans in high-traffic environments, there has been a performance impact."
"The performance can be better. Sometimes, the performance is not up to the mark. There is also integration complexity with third-party software and tools."
"The integration process could be enhanced by enabling integration at the organizational level rather than requiring the manual setup of individual accounts."
"The support it provides is not very good. They should improve it since we have had several setbacks due to support issues."
"The biggest thing is the documentation aspect of Dome9 is a little lacking. They were purchased by Check Point about a year and a half to two years ago. When they integrated into Check Point's support system, a lot of the documentation that they had previously got mangled in the transition, e.g., linking to stuff on the Dome9 website that no longer exists. There are still a lot of spaces with incomplete links and stuff that is not as fully explained as it could be."
"There are opportunities for improvement that can be addressed through a roadmap."
"I’d like to see more integration with third-party tools. For example, it would be helpful to have an integration between Dome9 and ServiceNow to manage security incidents and security changes."
"We have concerns regarding the pricing and would appreciate seeing some improvements."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"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."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"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."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"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."
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 63 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". 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". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Qualys VMDR, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Orca Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, best Vulnerability Management vendors, and best Container Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
