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."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."
"It is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."
"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."
"It's stable."
"The most valuable feature of Wazuh is the ELK for doing an investigation."
"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 most valuable features are the modules and metrics."
"Its cost-effectiveness is the most valuable aspect."
"The configuration assessment and Pile integrity monitoring features are decent."
"If they support a solution, it is easy to do an integration."
"I like Wazuh because it is a lot like ELK, which I was already comfortable with, so I didn't have to learn from scratch."
"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."
"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."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"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."
"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 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."
"The deployment is a bit complex."
"The tool doesn't detect anomalies or new environments."
"Its configuration process is time-consuming."
"Wazuh has a drawback with regard to Unix systems. The solution does not allow us to do real-time monitoring for Unix systems. If usage increases, it would be a heavy fall on the other SIEM solutions or event monitoring solutions."
"Adding the flexibility to integrate various plug-ins or modules into its core system would enhance functionality."
"The implementation is very complex."
"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."
"A lack of certain features creates limitations."
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 Datadog. 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.
