We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub 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 offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. AWS Security Hub is highly valued for its integration capabilities, real-time alert capabilities, and comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. Microsoft Defender for Cloud needs work in consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, and protection. Meanwhile, AWS Security Hub requires more integration options, a better user interface, self-sufficiency, multi-cloud compatibility, and faster updates and integration.
Service and Support: Some users have had positive experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, while others have encountered issues with outsourced support, slow response times, and difficulty reaching the appropriate level of support. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been characterized as prompt and satisfactory by clients.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and AWS Security Hub have fairly easy and straightforward initial setup processes. Microsoft Defender for Cloud may require some prior knowledge, but it generally takes less than 24 hours to deploy. Maintenance for both solutions is minimal, with AWS Security Hub requiring little to no maintenance after deployment. However, policies still need to be configured for AWS Security Hub during setup.
Pricing: M Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing depends on the license and metrics used, while AWS Security Hub's pricing is considered reasonable. Reviewers generally find Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing to be fair and cost-effective, but note that it may not be suitable for small businesses due to cost. AWS Security Hub's pricing is viewed as satisfactory, although there is some ambiguity for those not part of the central team.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is user-friendly and cost-effective, while AWS Security Hub has been beneficial for users.
Comparison Results: According to user feedback, Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option when compared to AWS Security Hub. It offers more comprehensive features, such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, and UEBA features that are important for cloud environments. Although AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, users suggest it could benefit from more integration options with open-source cloud security solutions and improvements to the user interface.
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"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 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 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 security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"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."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"AWS Security Hub provides comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. The integration with third-party tools is another excellent feature. All our workloads are on AWS."
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scanning of all the cloud environments and most of the compliances available in the cloud."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"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."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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."
"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."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"We need more granular-level customizations to enable or disable the rules in AWS Security Hub."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"It's not user-friendly. Too much going on, too many unnecessary findings, not very visual. You can't do much compared to other similar tools that are cheaper and better."
"One aspect that could be improved in the solution is its adaptability to different markets and geopolitical restrictions. In certain regions like Thailand, specific services from certain countries or providers, such as AWS or Azure, might be limited or blocked. It also needs improvement in would require configuring the solution more adaptable to AWS infrastructure and function."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"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."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". 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". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Google Chronicle Suite, Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Wazuh. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.
