We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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."Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"We like the centralized management of the firewalls. Until we installed Guardicore Centra, we managed all our firewalls individually, so making changes was complicated, difficult, and time-consuming."
"Guardicore Centra offers the best coverage specifically in backward compatibility with legacy operating systems."
"I found the solution to be stable."
"The interface and dashboard are amazing."
"This tool greatly helps in understanding the footprint of the attacks."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"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 technical support is very good."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"Good compliance policies."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"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."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Incident tagging could be improved. Other vendors offer semi-automatic tagging, which Guardicore doesn't yet have."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"Clients would like to see that the security policies of GuardiCore can continue to be comparable to all the major firewall players out there."
"It would be very helpful for beginners if the solution had more windows to help with the terms inside instead of going to the documentation."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"The dashboard needs improvement. It should be more flexible so that I can easily see what I want or need to see."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"Consistency is the area where the most improvement is needed. For example, there are some areas where the UI is not uniform across the board."
"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."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"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."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 13th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 17 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". 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". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security, whereas 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. See our Akamai Guardicore Segmentation vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors.
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.