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.
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"PingSafe stands out for its user-friendly interface and intuitive software, making it easy to navigate and use."
"PingSafe offers security solutions for both Kubernetes and CI/CD pipelines."
"Support has been very helpful and provides regular feedback and help whenever needed. They've been very useful."
"The mean time to detect has been reduced."
"The UI is responsive and user-friendly."
"It is fairly simple. Anybody can use it."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"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 most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"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."
"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 most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"One important security feature is the incident alerts. Now, with all these cyberattacks, there are a lot of incident alerts that get triggered. It is very difficult to keep monitoring everything automatically, instead our organization is utilizing the automated use case that we get from Microsoft. That has helped bring down the manual work for a lot of things."
"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."
"Overall, the performance is good."
"All the information available on each service, including its risk assessment."
"Without Skyhigh, we had zero visibility, but now we are aware of so much more."
"Offers a very strong URL spam filtering feature."
"It gives us visibility into how the data is being used within our cloud environment."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"Shadow IT reporting capabilities."
"I like the encrypted disk feature and the endpoint protection."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check PingSafe. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and PingSafe takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"I would like additional integrations."
"The alerting system of the product is an area that I look at and sometimes get confused about. I feel the alerting feature needs improvement."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"We are getting reports only in a predefined form. I would like to have customized reports so that I can see how many issues are open or closed today or in two weeks."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"Cloud Native Security's reporting could be better. We are unable to see which images are impacted. Several thousand images have been deployed, so if we can see some application-specific information in the dashboard, we can directly send that report to the team that owns the application. We'd also like the option to download the report from the portal instead of waiting for the report to be sent to our email."
"Crafting customized policies can be tricky."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"The product must improve its UI."
"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."
"The solution's portal is very easy to use, but there's one key component that is missing when it comes to managing policies. For example, if I've onboarded my server and I need to specify antivirus policies, there's no option to do that on the portal. I will have to go to Intune to deploy them. That is one main aspect that is missing and it's worrisome."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
"Sometimes it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or a special kind of product."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"MVISION Cloud is not well known and there should be more information about the solution. There could be integration to local applications."
"Needs integration with other technology ecosystems."
"One area for improvement I've seen in Skyhigh Security is that it lacks support for unsanctioned applications, where customers have their applications. Those applications do not come from Microsoft or other popular vendors. For example, Microsoft has support for Teams and it has support for OneDrive, but it doesn't have support for custom applications built by customers. Customers have internal teams building and publishing applications to the external world, but Skyhigh Security doesn't have support for those applications, and this is the main problem I've seen. The solution only supports a pool of applications that are from Microsoft and other major SaaS vendors. McAfee doesn't provide support for custom applications, compared to other vendors who provide it. For example, Bitglass and Netskope both have support for custom applications. Another area for improvement in Skyhigh Security is that its API support is a little weak. I also have not seen a strong integration between the solution and other McAfee products."
"One thing that can be improved is their ability to integrate with other web proxies to discover unsanctioned IP apps."
"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."
"De-tokenization."
"The pricing of the solution could be adjusted to make it more reasonable."
"Iron out the few bugs that I've seen."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security 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 17th 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 Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. 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.
