We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub 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.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. AWS Security Hub is highly valued for its integration capabilities, real-time alert capabilities, and comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. Microsoft Defender for Cloud needs work in consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, and protection. Meanwhile, AWS Security Hub requires more integration options, a better user interface, self-sufficiency, multi-cloud compatibility, and faster updates and integration.
Service and Support: Some users have had positive experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, while others have encountered issues with outsourced support, slow response times, and difficulty reaching the appropriate level of support. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been characterized as prompt and satisfactory by clients.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and AWS Security Hub have fairly easy and straightforward initial setup processes. Microsoft Defender for Cloud may require some prior knowledge, but it generally takes less than 24 hours to deploy. Maintenance for both solutions is minimal, with AWS Security Hub requiring little to no maintenance after deployment. However, policies still need to be configured for AWS Security Hub during setup.
Pricing: M Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing depends on the license and metrics used, while AWS Security Hub's pricing is considered reasonable. Reviewers generally find Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing to be fair and cost-effective, but note that it may not be suitable for small businesses due to cost. AWS Security Hub's pricing is viewed as satisfactory, although there is some ambiguity for those not part of the central team.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is user-friendly and cost-effective, while AWS Security Hub has been beneficial for users.
Comparison Results: According to user feedback, Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option when compared to AWS Security Hub. It offers more comprehensive features, such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, and UEBA features that are important for cloud environments. Although AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, users suggest it could benefit from more integration options with open-source cloud security solutions and improvements to the user interface.
"Easily integrates with third-party tools"
"I like that AWS Security Hub currently has several good features, around four or five. The technical support for AWS Security Hub is also responsive."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"Finding out if your infrastructure is secure is a valuable feature."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"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 main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"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."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"The solution lacks self-sufficiency."
"We need more granular-level customizations to enable or disable the rules in AWS Security Hub."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"The support must be quicker."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"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."
"The documentation and implementation guides could be improved."
"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"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."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 17 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". 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". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Google Chronicle Suite and Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Wazuh. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.