We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The label-based segmentation is the most valuable feature."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The solution is very scalable, especially when connected to the cloud resources."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its visibility."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"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."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"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."
"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."
"The maps could go a bit faster. They are useful but slightly slow."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"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."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 13th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 17 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". 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". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security, whereas 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. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.