We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Ease of Deployment: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks' initial setup was straightforward and aided by helpful engineers and clear instructions. Deployment time differed but was uncomplicated. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's setup is simple and straightforward, though policies must be set up. It necessitates minimal upkeep.
Features: Prisma Cloud provides a management console, continuous compliance monitoring, auto-remediation, and identity-based micro-segmentation. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, real-time alerts, and compliance monitoring. Prisma Cloud could benefit from more personalized dashboard options, enhanced automation capabilities, and better integration with ticketing systems. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub might benefit from greater integration possibilities with open-source solutions and upgrades to its user interface and dashboards.
Pricing: Prisma Cloud is perceived as having a complex credit-based pricing system, leading to a general perception of being expensive. However, it provides good value for securing multi-cloud environments. In contrast, AWS Security Hub is considered to have reasonable pricing, but there is some uncertainty surrounding it for those outside of the central team.
Service and Support: Prisma Cloud's customer service has been a bit inconsistent, with some customers appreciating the technical assistance and account managers, while others have encountered slow response times and unhelpful solutions. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been commended by contented customers for being prompt and efficient.
ROI: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks offers benefits such as risk transparency, enhanced compliance and security, and quicker issue resolution, resulting in improved productivity and cost savings. Although the exact ROI is hard to quantify, it reduces risks and enhances resource utilization. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub has been well-received with a positive outcome.
Comparison Results: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is the better option when compared to AWS Security Hub. Its features are more comprehensive and effective in protecting the entire cloud-native stack, including cloud compliance monitoring and alerting, network security, and micro-segmentation. While AWS Security Hub is praised for its integration capabilities, it falls short in terms of comprehensive features and auto-remediation capabilities.
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"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."
"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 first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"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 most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"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."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"I like that AWS Security Hub currently has several good features, around four or five. The technical support for AWS Security Hub is also responsive."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"Finding out if your infrastructure is secure is a valuable feature."
"CSPM is very useful because it gives us good policies and violation alerts."
"It has improved the overall collaboration between SecOps and DevOps. Now, instead of asking people to do something, it is a default offering in the CI/CD. There is less manual intervention and more seamless integration. It is why we don't have many dependencies across many teams, which is definitely a better state."
"Its ease of integration is valuable because we need to get the solution out of the door quickly, so speed and ease matter."
"One of the most valuable features is the compliance of RedLock, which we are using for any issues with security. It flags them and that's the primary objective of that feature."
"The runtime mechanism on the solution is very useful. It's got very good network mapping between containers. If you have more than one container, you can create a content data link between them."
"Prisma Cloud provides the needed visibility and control regardless of how complex and distributed the cloud environments become."
"It provides insights into potential vulnerabilities in our code, helping us identify and rectify issues before they can be exploited."
"The ability to monitor the artifact repository is one of the most valuable features because we have a disparate set of development processes, but everything tends to land in a common set of artifact repositories. The solution gives us a single point where we can apply security control for monitoring. That's really helpful."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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 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 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 telemetry doesn't always go into the control center. When you have multiple instances running in AWS, you need a control tower to take feeds from Security Hub and analyze your results. Sometimes exemptions aren't passed between the control tower and Security Hub. The configuration gets mixed up or you don't get the desired results."
"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."
"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."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"Although AWS Security Hub does a periodic scan of your overall infrastructure, it doesn't do it in real time."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"We need more granular-level customizations to enable or disable the rules in AWS Security Hub."
"The challenge that Palo Alto and Prisma have is that, at times, the instructions in an event are a little bit dated and they're not usable. That doesn't apply to all the instructions, but there are times where, for example, the Microsoft or the Amazon side has made some changes and Palo Alto or Prisma was not aware of them. So as we try to remediate an alert in such a case, the instructions absolutely do not work. Then we open up a ticket and they'll reply, "Oh yeah, the API for so-and-so vendor changed and we'll have to work with them on that." That area could be done a little better."
"The UI could use some improvement; we usually find the information we're looking for, but what fields can be clicked on and what workflow to follow to get the required information is not always evident. Sometimes we're all over the place, clicking around to drill in and uncover the alert and investigation details we're looking for."
"I would like to see the inclusion of automated counter-attack, although this is probably illegal."
"In terms of securing cloud-native development at build time, a lot of improvement is needed. Currently, it's more a runtime solution than a build-time solution. For runtime, I would rate it at seven out of 10, but for build-time there is a lot of work to be done."
"There is room for improvement on the logging and monitoring front because it's still not as holistic as I would want it to be."
"While Prisma provides a lot of visibility, it also creates a ton of work. Most customers that implement Prisma Cloud have thousands of alerts that are urgent."
"The access controls for our bank roles were not granular enough. We needed specific people to do particular actions, and we often had to give some people way too much access for them to be able to do what they needed in Prisma. They couldn't do their jobs if they didn't have that level of access, so other people had to do that part for them. It would help to have more granular role-based access controls."
"The UI is good, however, they could improve the experience."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 reviews while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 83 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. 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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Google Chronicle Suite, Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, AWS GuardDuty and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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.
