We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform 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: Forescout Platform stands out for its agentless visibility and advanced features like device fingerprinting. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Forescout users say the product could be better at resolving connectivity and license issues. Users also want more compatibility with different devices and operating systems, along with better logging and troubleshooting capabilities. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Some users reported positive experiences with Forescout support, but others requested better responsiveness and training. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Some users found Forescout’s setup to be simple and adaptable, while others perceived it as more complex and time-intensive. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: The total cost of Forescout Platform can be high depending on the level of customization and integration required. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Forescout Platform yields a solid ROI by improving network access control and overall security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Forescout Platform over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Users appreciate its agentless visibility, policy flexibility, and seamless integration with multiple vendors. It also provides comprehensive device and version clarity and excellent support. Microsoft Defender for Cloud falls short in terms of visibility and flexibility compared to Forescout Platform. Forescout Platform is also considered to be more cost-effective than Microsoft Defender for Cloud.
"The visibility is the main benefit. We now know how many devices are connected, what the use for each device is and what kind of devices we have in our environment."
"Forescout Platform has granular features and one of the most impressive features is the agentless feature."
"Forescout has a feature that blocks the endpoint at the point of collection. It sets preconditions and will block the system if those aren't met."
"The initial setup is easy, taking no more than two or three weeks."
"The 802.1X compliance authentication feature of this solution is very good."
"Its feature that I have found most valuable is that it is very granular. You can configure granular controls just as you want those policies to be implemented. It gives you that flexibility to go granular in how you want your controls to be implemented. That's something I like about it."
"The most valuable features of the Forescout Platform are NAC for sharing, Network Access Control, and port sharing of the devices."
"Forescout is easy to integrate with a lot of end systems."
"It is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"Microsoft Defender has a lot of features including regulatory compliance and attaching workbooks but the most valuable is the recommendations it provides for each and every resource when we open Microsoft Defender."
"This is a platform as a service provided by Azure. We don't need to install or maintain Azure Security Center. It is a ready-made service available in Azure. This is one of the main things that we like. If you look at similar tools, we have to install, maintain, and update services. Whereas, Azure Security Center manages what we are using. This is a good feature that has helped us a lot."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"Forescout Platform could improve the costs of integrations."
"It does not support the TACACS+ protocol."
"More detailed analysis during the authentication process, especially for troubleshooting access issues. We have found that troubleshooting RADIUS controls is quite arduous, as it is today. A trace function could easily resolve this by providing a means by which access issues from a certificate to passwords or accounts could easily be identified and remediated."
"Custom integrations need to be better."
"Better integration with third-party vendors is needed because as it is now, the list of third-party solutions that we can integrate and automate is quite limited."
"Logging would be one area for improvement. When we're troubleshooting, there are not a lot of clear things on Google that we can look up for ourselves. When we have an issue with it, we have to call the company to get the vendors involved. The logging of Forescout is horrible compared to other things that we've used."
"In the next release of the solution, it could benefit from being more flexible to allow for more freedom."
"Search - needs boolean functionality (or pseudo operand now working)."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
"I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"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."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"The remediation process could be improved."
Forescout Platform is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". 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". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis, 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 Forescout Platform vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.