We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Skyhigh Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender provides regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and security scoring, while Skyhigh Security offers strong URL spam filtering, encrypted disk, and endpoint protection, and efficient backup features. In terms of improvement, Microsoft Defender for Cloud lacks consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, documentation, intuitive features, and coverage. Skyhigh Security, on the other hand, needs better implementation, API integration, and training resources.
Service and Support: While some customers have had positive experiences with both solutions, there have also been issues with slow response times and unhelpful support. Additionally, Microsoft Defender for Cloud has outsourced support which has caused some frustration. However, Skyhigh Security's tutorials and documentation are generally praised as excellent.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is easy to set up and can be done by one person. It is cloud-based and doesn't need infrastructure deployment. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security's setup time varies depending on the user's skills and knowledge of technology and networking, ranging from five minutes to two weeks.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is seen as a fair and cost-effective option for pricing, with some complexity in licensing but often bundled with other Microsoft solutions. Skyhigh Security, on the other hand, is considered to have higher pricing and its hardware is seen as expensive. While its licensing is reasonably priced, some reviewers suggest there is room for improvement in this area.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud consolidates security solutions and reduces management time, resulting in a positive ROI. On the other hand, Skyhigh Security offers improved security posture, reduced risk of data breaches, increased visibility, and compliance, all of which can contribute to a positive ROI.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a better option than Skyhigh Security based on user reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has more valuable features such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Skyhigh Security needs improvements in virtual solutions, API integration, and technical support.
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"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 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."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"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 technical support is very good."
"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."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"Good compliance policies."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"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."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"The feature I like best about Skyhigh Security is its wide range of product support. For example, my company had NetApp storage running, and Skyhigh Security has on-premises NetApp storage support, which isn't available in other solutions. Skyhigh Security also has a better filtering feature versus the filtering feature in other solutions."
"There is [a feature] called cloud registry where we can see a risk assessment for the cloud services being used. If we want to add a new cloud service or a new cloud application, we can check into it and do an assessment through the cloud registry."
"It's an easy-to-use product."
"It's a great product with solid features."
"The other products that I have evaluated do not have the scalability options that McAfee has."
"Good anti-virus filtering, URL categorization, and reporting capabilities."
"It is easy to configure rules."
"DLP policies and anomalies."
"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 remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"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."
"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."
"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 solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"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."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"The cloud needs improvement with respect to DLP."
"They could be integrated with CASB. I think normally McAfee has this solution in the cloud, but for us the best is on-premise."
"User interface could be more intuitive."
"Support for securing more cloud apps."
"De-tokenization."
"The services take some time to load. It would be helpful if the loading time was reduced."
"The Skyhigh for Google Drive interface and policy engine is a bit confusing and limited when compared against other Google Drive CASB capabilities."
"They only have English support, so I would like for them to add some Spanish support."
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews while Skyhigh Security is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 51 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Skyhigh Security is rated 8.4. 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 Skyhigh Security writes "Good scalability, but the technical support service needs improvement". 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 Skyhigh Security is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Netskope , Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps, Symantec Proxy and Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Skyhigh Security report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors and best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) 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.
