We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Trellix Cloud Workload Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Wiz and others in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)."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."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"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."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"It's got a lot of great features."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"Microsoft Defender has a lot of features including regulatory compliance and attaching workbooks but the most valuable is the recommendations it provides for each and every resource when we open Microsoft Defender."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"The most valuable feature is the application control."
"The discovery feature is the most valuable. After you integrate your cloud environment, maybe an Azure or AWS, or a private environment hosted on VMware, it automatically starts discovering the number of servers that are running on that cloud and the number of services that you have done. It is a beautiful feature because, from a security standpoint, it is difficult to identify which VM is compliant or not when you keep on provisioning a number of VMs in the cloud. It also checks for compliance. It checks whether a system is compliant and whether antivirus is installed on a VM. If an antivirus is installed, it checks whether the antivirus is updated to the latest signature package or not. All these things are beautifully done by McAfee Cloud Workload Security. For communicating with the McAfee server, you need to install an agent on the VM. McAfee Cloud Workload Security gives you a direct opportunity to install an agent on a Windows machine. If you have a Windows cloud, you can directly push that agent onto the VM through your McAfee portal. It provides you a single dashboard view of all servers present in the cloud. It shows the servers on which the antivirus is already installed as well as the servers for which the antivirus installation is still pending. This dashboard view is a much-needed thing. It also has a centralized management, which makes it easy to use."
"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."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"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."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"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."
"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."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"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."
"Its vulnerability assessment is not the best. We cannot identify the vulnerabilities that are related to the operating system by using McAfee Cloud Workload Security. I wish McAfee would add a vulnerability assessment tool that will not only identify the vulnerability but will also be able to generate a report so that the required patching can be done for the servers. Currently, McAfee Cloud Workload Security only integrates with AWS and Azure. If it can also integrate with GCP, Alibaba, and other cloud services available in the market, it would be good because not all people are using Azure and AWS."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
More Trellix Cloud Workload Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Trellix Cloud Workload Security is ranked 19th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 2 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trellix Cloud Workload Security is rated 9.0. 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 Trellix Cloud Workload Security writes "Easy policy designing and highly scalable solution". 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, whereas Trellix Cloud Workload Security is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty and Trend Vision One - Cloud Security.
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.
