We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tenable, Wiz, Check Point Software Technologies and others in Vulnerability Management."The posture management and remediation features are the most valuable. We use GSL Builder to build custom rules in alignment with our organization's policies. CloudGuard has canned rules using multiple standard frameworks, but we also have additional rules."
"Alerts of cloud activity happening across all accounts is helpful."
"It offers advanced detection of threats that can harm data from the cloud database."
"The solution offers an excellent price, benefit, and installation relationship."
"It is able to bring visibility into that cloudy space where the security departments do not really see what is happening on the DevOps side. It brings visibility, security control, and standardization."
"The administration portal panel is very intuitive."
"The ability to integrate it with Microsoft Azure Sentinel allows us to validate the logs in an even more complex and meaningful way."
"The product allows us to enhance the security of the implementations we have."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting system."
"The solution does not affect a user's workflow."
"It does a great job of monitoring and maintaining a security baseline. For us, that is a key element. The notifications are pretty good."
"I like the web GUI/the management interface. I also like the security of Microsoft. As compared to other manufacturers, it's less complex and easy to understand and work with."
"Better logging allows us to find problems and take appropriate steps to lock them out."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless integration across different clouds."
"I like the alert policies because they are quite robust. It has some built-in templates that we can easily pick up. One of them is the alert for mass downloads, when a particular user is running a massive download on your SharePoint site."
"It is very easy to use, which is what we look for in these types of solutions."
"Check Point tools need to improve the latency in the portal since they take a long time to load."
"Almost all features are good, however, they still require improvements to the code security portion on which integration with the major source code repository is required."
"There are opportunities for improvement that can be addressed through a roadmap."
"The price of this solution should be reduced so that it is more affordable to scale."
"Streamlining the user interface would greatly improve the user experience."
"The costs are really high if you want the entire capabilities of the platform."
"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."
"The accuracy of its remediation is a 7.5 out of 10. Before, I would have given it a ten but now, to handle remediation for fully qualified domain names, it's not working as it did in the past. We're finding some difficulties there."
"Currently, reporting is not very straightforward and it needs to be enhanced. Specific reports are not included and you need to run a query, drill down, and then export it and share it. I would love to have reports with more fine-tuning or granularity, and more predefined reports."
"Sometimes, we'll get false positive alarms. For example, when a SharePoint path has no file sharing, but there is an external user, it will trigger an alarm that the file has been shared with an external user... the alerting mechanism should be more precise when giving you an alert about what activity has been done with the file..."
"The interface needs to be more user-friendly."
"In the future, I would like to see more plug-and-play capabilities that use AI to tell you what needs to be done. It would be helpful if it scanned our devices and made security suggestions, on a configuration basis."
"Generally, the pricing can always be improved along with the management system."
"I want them to enhance in-session policy."
"I would like for it to be available on Mac and for it to support all of the features of Microsoft financing products. It is really for Windows."
"It doesn't actually decrease the time to respond. This has been an issue with Microsoft recently. Sometimes, there is a delay when it comes to getting an alert policy email... Sometimes it takes two or three hours for that email to be sent."
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Vulnerability Management with 60 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 2nd in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 30 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4. 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 Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Qualys VMDR, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.
