We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management 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 includes regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and UEBA, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides granular level reports, governance and administration portal panel, and comprehensive security features for data governance. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has room for improvement in consistency, customization, automation, and integration, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management needs expanded reporting options, reduced price, and better integration with third-party software.
Service and Support: Both Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management have received mixed reviews for their customer service, with some users reporting positive experiences and others facing frustration or stating that technical support needs improvement.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is easy to set up and does not require infrastructure deployment, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management may be more complicated and require vendor support or multiple administrators. Both solutions are user-friendly.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers a range of license options with varying metrics, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's pricing is based on the size of the cloud infrastructure. Check Point's setup cost is affordable and easy, but some reviewers express concern that Microsoft Defender for Cloud may be too costly for small or startup businesses.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides basic security features that may or may not provide a good ROI depending on the company's needs. On the other hand, Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers a high ROI growth rate along with essential compliance and asset protection.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management due to its valuable features such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is also more automated and easier to use, with incident alerts and collaborative services.
"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."
"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."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"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."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"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."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"We like the GSL Builder feature. When you're running a security operations center, you spend a lot of time monitoring endpoint activity to ensure there is no malicious traffic or anonymous access in the environment. The GSL Builder is helpful for deep investigations of a particular reason for an incident. You can use it to get more information."
"The various CNAPP modules have granted more visibility of our cloud applications to our system engineers and developers."
"Compliance is becoming an important tool for us as well."
"It saves time because I can look across the organization. Instead of checking 50 different accounts atomically and spending 15 minutes investigating each, I can spend 15 minutes exploring all 50 accounts. It allows me to quickly look across the org for similar problems when one comes up. That's a huge time saver."
"This solution has saved the company from unnecessary data loss that occurs due to cyber attacks."
"The most valuable feature of Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management is the training."
"The feature that I value the most about Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is the possibility of checking compliance with different standards. This compliance check can be performed for each subscription or service that we have on all the different cloud providers that we use."
"The product allows us to enhance the security of the implementations we have."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"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."
"When you have commissioned Defender, you have these things visible already on your dashboard. This gives the efficiency to the people to do their actual work rather than bothering about the email, sorting out the email, or looking at it through an ITSM solution, whey they have to look at the description and use cases. Efficiency increases with this optimized, ready-made solution since you don't need to invest in something externally. You can start using the dashboard and auditing capability provided from day one. Thus, you have fewer costs with a more optimized, easier-to-use solution, providing operational efficiency for your team."
"This is a platform as a service provided by Azure. We don't need to install or maintain Azure Security Center. It is a ready-made service available in Azure. This is one of the main things that we like. If you look at similar tools, we have to install, maintain, and update services. Whereas, Azure Security Center manages what we are using. This is a good feature that has helped us a lot."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"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."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"In Dome9, there should be a policy validation option where we can validate the policy before we push it into production."
"The platform would be significantly enhanced by incorporating data security management capabilities."
"The costs are high."
"I strongly advise that the multi-layered security system of Check Point often undergoes updates and new versions keep coming."
"The entire system is complicated, and the setup process may not cater to the company's demands."
"We have concerns regarding the pricing and would appreciate seeing some improvements."
"The biggest thing is the documentation aspect of Dome9 is a little lacking. They were purchased by Check Point about a year and a half to two years ago. When they integrated into Check Point's support system, a lot of the documentation that they had previously got mangled in the transition, e.g., linking to stuff on the Dome9 website that no longer exists. There are still a lot of spaces with incomplete links and stuff that is not as fully explained as it could be."
"Currently, this solution is somewhat expensive."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"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."
"The product must improve its UI."
"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."
"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."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 3rd in Compliance Management with 60 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Compliance Management with 46 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". 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". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Qualys VMDR, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Orca Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors, best Container Management vendors, and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Compliance Management 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.
