We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft and others in Container Security."With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"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."
"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."
"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 dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"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."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"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."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"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."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"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 most valuable feature is the SecOps because they have our back and they help us with the reports... It's like having an extension of your team. And then, it grows with you."
"It has been quite helpful to have the daily alerts coming to my email, as well as the Sev 1 Alerts... We just went through a SOX audit and those were pivotal."
"It is scalable. It deploys easily with curl and yum."
"Every other security tool we've looked is good at containers, or at Kubernetes, is good at AWS, or at instance monitoring. But nobody is good at tying all of those things together, and that's really where Threat Stack shines."
"The number-one feature is the monitoring of interactive sessions on our Linux machines. We run an immutable environment, so that nothing is allowed to be changed in production... We're constantly monitoring to make sure that no one is violating that. Threat Stack is what allows us to do that."
"With Threat Stack, we quickly identified some AWS accounts which had services that would potentially be exposed and were able to remediate them prior to release of products."
"An important feature of this solution is monitoring. Specifically, container monitoring."
"The rules are really great. They give us more visibility and control over what's being triggered. There's a large set of rules that come out-of-the-box. We can customize them and we can create our own rules based on the traffic patterns that we see."
"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."
"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."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"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."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"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."
"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."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"The API - which has grown quite a bit, so we're still learning it and I can't say whether it still needs improvement - was an area that had been needing it."
"The reports aren't very good. We've automated the report generation via the API and replaced almost all the reports that they generate for us using API calls instead."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
"It shoots back a lot of alerts."
"The user interface can be a little bit clunky at times... There's a lot of information that needs to be waded through, and the UI just isn't great."
"The solution’s ability to consume alerts and data in third-party tools (via APIs and export into S3 buckets) is moderate. They have some work to do in that area... The API does not mimic the features of the UI as far as reporting and pulling data out go. There's a big discrepancy there."
"The one thing that we know they're working on, but we don't have through the tool, is the application layer. As we move to a serverless environment, with AWS Fargate or direct Lambda, that's where Threat Stack does not have the capacity to provide feed. Those are areas that it's blind to now..."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 30th in Container Security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.2. 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 Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Microsoft Sentinel, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Darktrace, Palo Alto Networks URL Filtering with PAN-DB, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Qualys VMDR.
See our list of best Container Security vendors, best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.
