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.
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"The visibility is the best part of the solution."
"The UI is very good."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"The management console is the most valuable feature."
"The offensive security where they do a fix is valuable. They go to a misconfiguration and provide detailed alerts on what could be there. They also provide a remediation feature where if we give the permission, they can also go and fix the issue."
"It saves time, makes your environment more secure, and improves compliance. PingSafe helps with audits, ensuring that you are following best practices for cloud security. You don't need to be an expert to use it and improve your security."
"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."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites."
"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 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."
"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 solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"It would be really helpful if the solution improves its agent deployment process."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"In addition to our telecom and Slack channels, it would be helpful to receive Cloud Native Security security notifications in Microsoft Teams."
"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."
"In addition to the console alerts, I would like PingSafe to also send email notifications."
"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."
"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."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand."
"Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though."
"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."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"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."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"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."
"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."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 20th 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 Sysdig Falco, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes 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.