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."This solution has saved the company from unnecessary data loss that occurs due to cyber attacks."
"We like the ability to investigate, analyze, and generate reports."
"It provides critical insights that enable the IT team to plan and launch smart investigations when there are security breaches."
"The dashboard is intuitive. You know if you're compliant or not, and then it gives you a remediation plan."
"The system has deployed security tools to enhance effective investigations in the entire company networking system."
"It has an analytics service that does research for us."
"This product provides a really nice visualization of the infrastructure, including network topology, firewalls, etc."
"People implementing this solution are concerned with addressing a significant risk, and within the AWS realm, this tool does de-risk substantially."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting system."
"The general usability of the solution is very straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the seamless integration across different clouds."
"On-demand scanning is the most valuable feature. In addition, it's a fairly fluid product. It syncs back to the cloud and provides metrics. It's pretty intelligent."
"All of the features are valuable because all of the features are related."
"We have become more aware of what services our users are using, how often they are using them, and what data is being sent out of the organization and to which services. So, it is really a lot about visibility and helping us make decisions based on that. It drives some of our policy decisions for adding extra security controls."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of management. It's important."
"The product helps us with privileged identity management to control who has access to what and for how long."
"The costs are really high if you want the entire capabilities of the platform."
"The false positives can be annoying at times."
"No improvements are needed."
"The costs are high."
"CloudGuard could be improved by including integration with vendors other than AWS, especially Azure, especially in permissions."
"Currently, this solution is somewhat expensive."
"Addressing the large amount of compliance information and benchmarks we need to observe, the tools are becoming our goto dashboards."
"We want to be able to customize the solution more in order to meet the needs of our company."
"We sometimes get errors when we create policies, which is somewhat annoying because some policies stop working due to misconfigurations. We find this challenging because it limits our options for troubleshooting an issue."
"I would prefer to have filtering options incorporated within the policies, enabling the solution to perform tasks beyond mere blocking or allowing."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps’s technical support services needs improvement."
"We would like to get more information from the endpoint. I don't get enough detailed information right now on why something failed. There is not enough visibility."
"Generally, the pricing can always be improved along with the management system."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps' initial setup was quite technical but we were prepared. The time of the implementation depends on the job and how many users are being set up."
"They need to improve the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules. In the latest version, you can implement ASR rules, which are quite useful, but you have to enable those because if they're not enabled, they flag false positives. In the Defender portal, it logs a block for WMI processes and PowerShell. Apparently, it's because ASR rules are not configured. So, you generally have to enable them to exclude, for example, WMI queries or PowerShell because they have a habit of blocking your security scanners. It's a bit weird that they have to be enabled to be configured, and it's not the other way around."
"Defender for Cloud Apps could come with more configured policies out of the box. Also, integration could be easier. Integration is moderately difficult because Microsoft hasn't developed a solution that unifies device onboarding and management. You have to use Intune to manage devices and Defender for Endpoint to enforce policies. They need to fix their integration, but I believe they will straighten it out by the end of the year."
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 5th in Vulnerability Management with 56 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 8.4, 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, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Wiz 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.