We performed a comparison between AWS (AWS GuardDuty) 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.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Microsoft Defender for Cloud comes out ahead of AWS GuardDuty. AWS GuardDuty’s initial setup and integrations are more complex. It as well has less comprehensive features and a less straightforward pricing model.
"With anomaly detection, active threat monitoring, and set correlation, GuardDuty alerts me to any unusual user behavior or traffic patterns right away, which is great for staying on top of potential security risks."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution provides AWS GuardDuty S3 protection, EKS runtime protection, and malware protection."
"One of the advantages of cloud services is the ability to use them on demand. There's minimal installation involved; you can check the latest offerings and make new deployments while dismantling the previous ones. This approach keeps you ahead of potential services, showcasing the agility of AWS."
"We have over 1,000 employees, and we monitor their activity through AWS GuardDuty."
"The correlation back end is the solution's most valuable feature."
"We use the tool for threat detection. AWS includes AI features as well. AWS GuardDuty gives us reports."
"The solution will detect abnormalities in the AWS workload and alert us so that we can monitor and take action."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"The vulnerability reporting is helpful. When we initially deployed Defender, it reported many more threats than we currently see. It gave us insight into areas we had not previously considered, so we knew where we needed to act."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"Technical support is helpful."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"It would be great if the solution had some automation capabilities."
"AWS GuardDuty sometimes shows false positives and should have better detection accuracy."
"For me, I would say just the presentation of findings, like the dashboards and other stuff, could be improved a bit."
"For the next release, they could provide IPS features as well."
"Some of the pain points in Amazon GuardDuty was the cost. When compared to some of the other services, depending on how many we had to monitor, if we had a huge range of accounts, as our accounts increased, we had a cost factor that came into play. Sometimes there were issues, for example, with findings that came up, we wanted to add notes and there were issues back then where notes couldn't be entered properly. If we wanted to leave a note such as "Okay, we have assessed this and this is how we feel", or "This is a false positive", Amazon GuardDuty wasn't allowing us to do that. Even with the suppression of certain findings, there was some issue that we had faced at one time. Those were some of the pain points of the solution."
"We currently find Lacework to be much better at detecting vulnerabilities than AWS GuardDuty. The engines of AWS GuardDuty have to be improved."
"It is evolving, and at the moment, I will just need it on a larger scale. Then, it will satisfy my demand, initially."
"Amazon GuardDuty could be better enriched in threat intelligence data."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."
"Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
AWS GuardDuty is ranked 4th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 19 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. AWS GuardDuty is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS GuardDuty writes "A stellar threat-detection service that has helped bolster security against malicious threats". 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". AWS GuardDuty is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Wiz, Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP and Lacework, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Microsoft Sentinel. See our AWS GuardDuty 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.
