We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Skyhigh Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender provides regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and security scoring, while Skyhigh Security offers strong URL spam filtering, encrypted disk, and endpoint protection, and efficient backup features. In terms of improvement, Microsoft Defender for Cloud lacks consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, documentation, intuitive features, and coverage. Skyhigh Security, on the other hand, needs better implementation, API integration, and training resources.
Service and Support: While some customers have had positive experiences with both solutions, there have also been issues with slow response times and unhelpful support. Additionally, Microsoft Defender for Cloud has outsourced support which has caused some frustration. However, Skyhigh Security's tutorials and documentation are generally praised as excellent.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is easy to set up and can be done by one person. It is cloud-based and doesn't need infrastructure deployment. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security's setup time varies depending on the user's skills and knowledge of technology and networking, ranging from five minutes to two weeks.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is seen as a fair and cost-effective option for pricing, with some complexity in licensing but often bundled with other Microsoft solutions. Skyhigh Security, on the other hand, is considered to have higher pricing and its hardware is seen as expensive. While its licensing is reasonably priced, some reviewers suggest there is room for improvement in this area.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates security solutions and reduces management time, resulting in a positive ROI. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security offers improved security posture, reduced risk of data breaches, increased visibility, and compliance, all of which can contribute to a positive ROI.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a better option than Skyhigh Security based on user reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has more valuable features such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Skyhigh Security needs improvements in virtual solutions, API integration, and technical support.
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"It is pretty easy to integrate with this platform. When properly integrated, it monitors end-to-end."
"The solution helped free other staff to work on other projects or other tasks. We basically just had to do a bunch of upfront configuring. With it, we do not have to spend as much time in the console."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"The user interface is well-designed and easy to navigate."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"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."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"When you have commissioned Defender, you have these things visible already on your dashboard. This gives the efficiency to the people to do their actual work rather than bothering about the email, sorting out the email, or looking at it through an ITSM solution, whey they have to look at the description and use cases. Efficiency increases with this optimized, ready-made solution since you don't need to invest in something externally. You can start using the dashboard and auditing capability provided from day one. Thus, you have fewer costs with a more optimized, easier-to-use solution, providing operational efficiency for your team."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"All the information available on each service, including its risk assessment."
"There is [a feature] called cloud registry where we can see a risk assessment for the cloud services being used. If we want to add a new cloud service or a new cloud application, we can check into it and do an assessment through the cloud registry."
"It also prevents you from writing data to your Gmail and does not allow you to move your data outside of the corporate system. That is the most important feature for me."
"A stable solution with good support."
"The management is very good."
"Box API features with DLP capabilities."
"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."
"The stability is the most valuable feature. We haven't had any issues with the product."
"PingSafe is an excellent CSPM tool, but the CWPP features need to improve, and there is a scope for more application security posture management features. There aren't many ASPM solutions on the market, and existing ones are costly. I would like to see PingSafe develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM, CSPM, and CWPP. Another feature I'd like to see is runtime protection."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"There's room for improvement in the graphic explorer."
"Currently, we would have to export our vulnerability report to an .xlsx file, and review it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then we sort of compile a list from there. It would be cool if there was a way to actually toggle multiple applications for review and then see those file paths on multiple users rather than only one user at a time or only one application at a time."
"In some cases, the rules are strictly enforced but do not align with real-world use cases."
"One area for improvement could be the internal analysis process, specifically the guidance provided for remediation."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The documentation and implementation guides could be improved."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"Defender is occasionally unreliable. It isn't 100% efficient in terms of antivirus detection, but it isn't an issue most of the time. It's also somewhat difficult to train new security analysts to use Defender."
"I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features."
"Its initial setup could be more straightforward."
"The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP."
"It is an expensive solution."
"They only have English support, so I would like for them to add some Spanish support."
"McAfee Web Gateway could improve the reporting. We have the reporting on a separate server and sometimes the database becomes full. These aspects could improve."
"Though the Skyhigh Dashboard is processing large amounts of data, the speed of the Dashboard could be improved."
"An area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is its UI. It needs to be enhanced and made more user-friendly. Right now, the UI of Skyhigh Security is sometimes confusing. For example, my company is deploying Skyhigh Security for a client and integrating it on the cloud, from an on-premises deployment to a hybrid deployment. Though the experience isn't bad, there needs to be more enhancements. Another room for improvement in Skyhigh Security is the limited training resources, especially when you compare it with Cisco, which has many study materials in the market, even free training resources. You'll get limited resources if you search for Skyhigh Security tutorials on Google and YouTube. Because of high-security requirements and the training material for Skyhigh Security not being available, most engineers and architects avoid the product because there'd be a lack of knowledge in configuring and achieving the goals you'd want to reach via the use of Skyhigh Security. The NOC team deploying the product is having difficulty getting training resources for Skyhigh Security. You'll be charged an enormous amount if you search the market for training because of the limited resources available. Skyhigh Security needs to work on marketing and awareness as an improvement to the product."
"The performance of the tool can be improved to provide faster report generation."
More Singularity Cloud Security by SentinelOne Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 14th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 51 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". 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, whereas Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and Zscaler CASB. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Skyhigh Security report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors and best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) 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.
