We performed a comparison between SUSE NeuVector 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.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer SUSE NeuVector over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Reviewers liked its extensive features, user-friendly interface, and support for multiple clusters. It also stands out for its integration with CI/CD pipelines and ability to perform ISO certification checks, making it valuable for compliance purposes. While Microsoft Defender for Cloud earned high marks for threat analysis, automation, and integration with other Microsoft products, SUSE NeuVector's compliance features give it a competitive advantage.
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"The technical support is very good."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"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."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 19th in Container Security with 7 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. 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 SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". 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 SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Sysdig Falco and NGINX App Protect. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. SUSE NeuVector report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors and best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
We monitor all Container Security 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.