We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Wazuh based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Atlas security graph is pretty cool. It maps out relationships between components on AWS, like load balancers and servers. This helps visualize potential attack paths and even suggests attack paths a malicious actor might take."
"As a frequently audited company, we value PingSafe's compliance monitoring features. They give us a report with a compliance score for how well we meet certain regulatory standards, like HIPAA. We can show our compliance as a percentage. It's also a way to show that we are serious about security."
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"It is advantageous in terms of time-saving and cost reduction."
"It is very straightforward. It is not complicated. For the information that it provides, it does a pretty good job."
"PingSafe offers comprehensive security posture management."
"My favorite feature is Storyline."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"The technical support is very good."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"Technical support is helpful."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"It offers built-in modules for file integrity and vulnerability management."
"Wazuh's best features are syscheck, its ability to immediately resolve vulnerabilities, and that it's open source."
"Some of the strengths of Wazuh that stand out for us include its scalability when deployed on Azure, its open-source nature, which allows for customization based on our needs, and its compatibility with various security solutions like threat intelligence platforms."
"The deployment is easy and they provide very good documentation."
"Good for monitoring, active response, and for vulnerabilities."
"It is excellent in terms of visualization and indexing services, making it a powerful tool for malware detection."
"The most valuable features are the modules and metrics."
"Wazuh's most beneficial features for our security needs are flexibility, built-in rules, integration capabilities, and documentation."
"There's an array of upcoming versions with numerous features to be incorporated into the roadmap. Customers particularly appreciate the service's emphasis on intensive security, especially the secret scanning aspect. During the proof of concept (POC) phase, the system is required to gather logs from the customer's environment. This process entails obtaining specific permissions, especially in terms of gateway access. While most permissions for POC are manageable, the need for various permissions may need improvement, especially in the context of security."
"They could generally give us better comprehensive rules."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"The Automation tab is an add-on that doesn’t work properly. They provide a list of scripts that don’t work and I have asked support to assist but they won’t help. When running on various endpoints the script doesn’t work and if it does, it’s only a couple. There are a lot of useful scripts that would be beneficial to run forensics, event logs, and process lists running on the endpoint."
"Some of the navigation and some aspects of the portal may be a little bit confusing."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority."
"The solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"When you work with it, the only problem that we're struggling with is that we have 21 different subscriptions we're trying to apply security to. It's impossible to keep everything organized."
"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."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"One area where Wazuh could use some improvement is in its reporting mechanism, especially for high-level management like CSOs and CEOs."
"The support team could be more responsive and provide quicker replies during our working hours in Indonesia, which would be a significant improvement."
"The only challenge we faced with Wazuh was the lack of direct support."
"There's not much I like about Wazuh. Other products I've used were a lot more functional and user friendly. They came with reports and use cases out of the box. We need to configure Wazuh's alerts and monitoring capabilities manually. It'd be nice if we could select from templates and presets for use cases already built and coded."
"The biggest part that's missing is threat intelligence. It isn't inbuilt, and if a sudden incident occurs, we don't get that feedback inside the SIEM tool. That's a big gap, I see. It would be better if we could get the threat intelligence feeds integrated with the SIEM tools. That would help us push value solutions to the clients in a big way."
"Scalability is a challenge because it is distributed architecture and it uses Elastic DB. Their Elastic DB doesn't allow open source waste application."
"The technical support can be improved. Wazuh has some bugs that need to be fixed. It would be good if we can have automation with respect to incidence responses."
"The computing resources are consuming and do not make sense."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Wazuh is ranked 2nd in Log Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Wazuh is rated 7.4. 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 Wazuh writes "It integrates seamlessly with AWS cloud-native services". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Trend Vision One - Cloud Security, whereas Wazuh is most compared with Elastic Security, Security Onion, Splunk Enterprise Security, AlienVault OSSIM and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Wazuh report.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.
