We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Ease of Deployment: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks' initial setup was straightforward and aided by helpful engineers and clear instructions. Deployment time differed but was uncomplicated. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's setup is simple and straightforward, though policies must be set up. It necessitates minimal upkeep.
Features: Prisma Cloud provides a management console, continuous compliance monitoring, auto-remediation, and identity-based micro-segmentation. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, real-time alerts, and compliance monitoring. Prisma Cloud could benefit from more personalized dashboard options, enhanced automation capabilities, and better integration with ticketing systems. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub might benefit from greater integration possibilities with open-source solutions and upgrades to its user interface and dashboards.
Pricing: Prisma Cloud is perceived as having a complex credit-based pricing system, leading to a general perception of being expensive. However, it provides good value for securing multi-cloud environments. In contrast, AWS Security Hub is considered to have reasonable pricing, but there is some uncertainty surrounding it for those outside of the central team.
Service and Support: Prisma Cloud's customer service has been a bit inconsistent, with some customers appreciating the technical assistance and account managers, while others have encountered slow response times and unhelpful solutions. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been commended by contented customers for being prompt and efficient.
ROI: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks offers benefits such as risk transparency, enhanced compliance and security, and quicker issue resolution, resulting in improved productivity and cost savings. Although the exact ROI is hard to quantify, it reduces risks and enhances resource utilization. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub has been well-received with a positive outcome.
Comparison Results: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is the better option when compared to AWS Security Hub. Its features are more comprehensive and effective in protecting the entire cloud-native stack, including cloud compliance monitoring and alerting, network security, and micro-segmentation. While AWS Security Hub is praised for its integration capabilities, it falls short in terms of comprehensive features and auto-remediation capabilities.
"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 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 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 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."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the scanning of all the cloud environments and most of the compliances available in the cloud."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The platform has valuable features for security."
"AWS Security Hub provides comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. The integration with third-party tools is another excellent feature. All our workloads are on AWS."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"The visibility on alerts helps you investigate more easily and see details faster."
"I like Prisma's ability to integrate with other tools. We can integrate it with Jira so that when Prisma triggers an alert, it opens a ticket in Jira. That was a big selling point for the product. There's a feature called the guest custom template that allows you to trigger alerts in Jira based on the template. That can also be added as a feature on Jira."
"Prisma Cloud is quite simple to use. The web GUI is powerful. Prisma Cloud scans the overall architecture of the AWS network to identify open ports and other vulnerabilities, then highlights them."
"We found it to be easy and flexible. We could easily configure it for our needs, and we could spread the Prisma Cloud platform to 16 countries without encountering any kind of problem."
"The policies that come prepackaged in the tool have been very valuable to us. They're accurate and they provide good guidance as to why the policy was created, as well as how to remediate anything that violates the policy."
"The initial setup is seamless."
"The application visibility is amazing. For example, sometimes we don't know what a particular custom port is for and what is running on it. The visibility enables us to identify applications, what the protocol is, and what service is behind it. Within Azure, it is doing a great job of providing visibility. We know exactly what is passing through our network. If there is an issue of any sort we are able to quickly detect it and fix the problem."
"Prisma scans things and shows all the vulnerabilities and packages that are vulnerable, and which layers, by default, have vulnerabilities. So developers can easily go into the package or a particular layer and make changes to their code. It's very transparent."
"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 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."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"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."
"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 only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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 aspect that could be improved in the solution is its adaptability to different markets and geopolitical restrictions. In certain regions like Thailand, specific services from certain countries or providers, such as AWS or Azure, might be limited or blocked. It also needs improvement in would require configuring the solution more adaptable to AWS infrastructure and function."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"Adding SIEM features would be beneficial because of the limited customization of AWS Security Hub."
"The solution should be easier to learn and use"
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"The solution does not currently support servers for GCP."
"While Prisma provides a lot of visibility, it also creates a ton of work. Most customers that implement Prisma Cloud have thousands of alerts that are urgent."
"The feedback that we have given to the Palo Alto team is that the UI can be improved. When you press the "back" button on your browser from the Investigate tab, the query that you're working on just disappears. It won't keep the query on the "back" button."
"The challenge that Palo Alto and Prisma have is that, at times, the instructions in an event are a little bit dated and they're not usable. That doesn't apply to all the instructions, but there are times where, for example, the Microsoft or the Amazon side has made some changes and Palo Alto or Prisma was not aware of them. So as we try to remediate an alert in such a case, the instructions absolutely do not work. Then we open up a ticket and they'll reply, "Oh yeah, the API for so-and-so vendor changed and we'll have to work with them on that." That area could be done a little better."
"In terms of securing cloud-native development at build time, a lot of improvement is needed. Currently, it's more a runtime solution than a build-time solution. For runtime, I would rate it at seven out of 10, but for build-time there is a lot of work to be done."
"It can be too expensive for small companies."
"Prisma Cloud supports generating CSV files, but I would also like it to generate PDF files for reporting."
"The user interface should be improved and made easier."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 17 reviews while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 82 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Google Chronicle Suite, Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, AWS GuardDuty and Snyk. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.