We performed a comparison between Google Cloud Security Command Center and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."PingSafe released a new security graph tool that helps us identify the root issue. Other tools give you a pass/fail type of profile on all misconfigurations, and those will run into the thousands. PingSafe's graphing algorithm connects various components together and tries to identify what is severe and what is not. It can correlate various vulnerabilities and datasets to test them on the back end to pinpoint the real issue."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"PingSafe's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"Cloud Native Security is user-friendly. Everything in the Cloud Native Security tool is straightforward, including detections, integration, reporting, etc. They are constantly improving their UI by adding plugins and other features."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"Our previous product took a lot of man hours to manage. Once we got Singularity Cloud Workload Security, it freed up our time to work on other tasks."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"The compliance reporting feature helped us maintain a baseline of compliance within the information security policies."
"It simplifies compliance efforts."
"Defender is a robust platform for dealing with many kinds of threats. We're protected from various threats, like viruses. Attacks can be easily minimized with this solution defending our infrastructure."
"The technical support is very good."
"The dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"Good compliance policies."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"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."
"One of the features that I like about the solution is it is both a hybrid cloud and also multi-cloud. We never know what company we're going to buy, and therefore we are ready to go. If they have GCP or AWS, we have support for that as well. It offers a single-panel blast across multiple clouds."
"PingSafe takes four to five hours to detect and highlight an issue, and that time should be reduced."
"There is a bit of a learning curve for new users."
"One of the issues with the product stems from the fact that it clubs different resources under one ticket."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"We recently adopted a new ticket management solution, so we've asked them to include a connector to integrate that tool with Cloud Native Security directly. We'd also like to see Cloud Native Security add a scan for personally identifying information. We're looking at other tools for this capability, but having that functionality built into Cloud Native Security would be nice. Monitoring PII data is critical to us as an organization."
"In terms of ease of use, initially, it is a bit confusing to navigate around, but once you get used to it, it becomes easier."
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"Visibility can be improved along with automation."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"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."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"Another thing is that Defender for Cloud uses more resources than CrowdStrike, which my current company uses. Defender for Cloud has two or three processes running simultaneously that consume memory and processor time. I had the chance to compare that with CrowdStrike a few days ago, which was significantly less. It would be nice if Defender were a little lighter. It's a relatively large installation that consumes more resources than competitors do."
"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."
"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."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Google Cloud Security Command Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Google Cloud Security Command Center is ranked 17th in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) with 2 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) with 46 reviews. Google Cloud Security Command Center is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Google Cloud Security Command Center writes "Provides visibility, address cloud misconfiguration and prevent threats ". 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". Google Cloud Security Command Center is most compared with Wiz and Orca Security, 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 Google Cloud Security Command Center vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) 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.
