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.
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The CSPM module has been the most effective. It was easy to deploy and covered all our accounts through APIs, requiring no agents. Wiz provides instant visibility into high-level risks that we need to address."
"I like Wiz's reporting, and it's easy to do queries. For example, it's pretty simple to find out how many servers we have and the applications installed on each. I like Wiz's security graph because you can use it to see the whole organization even if you have multiple accounts."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scanning of all the cloud environments and most of the compliances available in the cloud."
"It's a security posture management tool from AWS. Basically, it identifies misconfigurations, similar to Trusted Advisor but on a larger scale."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"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."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"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."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"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."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"The reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"We're looking at some of the data compliance stuff that they've got Jon offer. I know they're looking at container security, which we gonna be looking at next."
"We would like to see improvements to executive-level reporting and data reporting in general, which we understand is being rolled out to the platform."
"We wish there were a way, beyond providing visibility and automated remediation, to wait on a given remediation, due to a critical aspect, such as the cost associated with a particular upgrade... We would like to see preventive controls that can be applied through Wiz to protect against vulnerabilities that we're not going to be able to remediate immediately."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"Wiz's reporting capabilities could be refined a bit. They are making headway on that, but more executive-style dashboards would be nice. They just implemented a community aspect where you can share documents and feedback. This was something users had been requesting for a while. They are listening to customer feedback and making changes."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"Although AWS Security Hub does a periodic scan of your overall infrastructure, it doesn't do it in real time."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"AWS Security Hub should improve the time it takes to update. It takes a long period of time when updating. It can take 24 hours sometimes to update. Additionally, when integrating this solution with more security tools, takes time."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"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."
"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."
"We need more granular-level customizations to enable or disable the rules in AWS Security Hub."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"One of the main challenges that we have been facing with Azure Security Center is the cost. The costs are really a complex calculation, e.g., to calculate the monthly costs. Azure is calculating on an hourly basis for use of the resource. Because of this, we found it really complex to promote what will be our costs for the next couple of months. I think if Azure could reduce the complex calculation and come up with straightforward cost mapping that would be very useful from a product point of view."
"Microsoft sources most of their threat intelligence internally, but I think they should open themselves up to bodies that provide feel intelligence to build a better engine. There may be threats out there that they don't report because their team is not doing anything on that and they don't have arrangements with another party that is involved in that research."
"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."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 14th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 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, Splunk Enterprise Security, 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, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. 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.
