Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 13, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Zafran Security
Sponsored
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
18th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (2nd)
Arctic Wolf Managed Risk
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
31st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (11th)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Container Management (8th), Container Security (7th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (2nd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (5th), Microsoft Security Suite (7th), Compliance Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 0.8%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is 1.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 5.7%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management
 

Featured Reviews

Israel Cavazos Landini - PeerSpot reviewer
Weekly insights and risk analysis facilitate informed security decisions
I appreciate the weekly insights Zafran provides, which include critical topics for networks and IT security, allowing us to evaluate which insights apply to our environment. The organization score feature is valuable to keep the leadership team updated on how our infrastructure fares security-wise. The applicable risk level versus base risk level feature is beneficial because prior to Zafran, we only used the base risk level, but now understand that risk depends on the asset itself. Zafran is an excellent tool.
Jared Kruger - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to conduct vulnerability scans but needs to add more integrations
There are companies that do vulnerability scans. However, what adds value is when two experts come and sit with you to scan and patch the vulnerabilities. Any 50-member or small company that has an IT footprint carries risk from a cybersecurity perspective. These companies use tools but don't have the talent to leverage them.
Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We saw benefits from Zafran Security almost immediately after deploying it."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"Overall, we have seen about eighty-seven percent reduction of the number of vulnerabilities that require urgency to remediate, specifically the number of criticals."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"We have a patch management solution that scans for any patches that can be applied and then applies these patches, but it doesn't hit everything. It also doesn't find all misconfigurations and things like that. Arctic Wolf Managed Risk kind of fills in the gaps and makes us aware of vulnerabilities or misconfigurations that exist out there. It does an agent scan for software versions and compares them to what CVs are out there and lets us know."
"The customer support is incredible."
"There are companies that do vulnerability scans. However, what adds value is when two experts come and sit with you to scan and patch the vulnerabilities. Any 50-member or small company that has an IT footprint carries risk from a cybersecurity perspective. These companies use tools but don't have the talent to leverage them."
"The reporting is really good from what I've seen so far."
"We get access to quarterly reviews with their team."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"The most valuable feature of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is being informed about what vulnerabilities there are exposed currently."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features offer the latest threat detection and response capabilities."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"I have not experienced any difficulties or issues with the stability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud."
"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."
"The most valuable feature is the hunting feature, which integrates well into the entire Microsoft ecosystem."
"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."
"The valuable features include the ability to manage devices and the fact that Defender can replace other security tools like SCCM."
 

Cons

"Initially, we were somewhat concerned about the scalability of Zafran due to our large asset count and the substantial amount of information we needed to process."
"I think the ability to have some enhanced reporting capabilities is something they can improve on, as they have good reports but we have asked for some specific reporting enhancements."
"The dashboarding and reporting functionality of Zafran Security is an area that definitely could use some improvements."
"The scalability could improve."
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk needs to add more integrations."
"It could be easier to use. They could present things in a little bit more ranked order rather than kind of giving you everything out there. It should highlight the really important stuff and make it easier to get to good rather than perfect."
"The presentation of the data could be improved."
"The major area for improvement is the lack of a patch management feature to resolve some of the vulnerabilities detected."
"As far as the product is concerned, I would really like the scanning feature to let us know that a threat has been addressed once we apply the relevant patch. We are not seeing this currently when running a scan."
"The presentation of the data could be improved. I believe they have significant room for improvement, particularly in making better analysis of the vulnerability data and presenting those data more effectively."
"The major area for improvement is the lack of a patch management feature to resolve some of the vulnerabilities detected."
"My experience with Microsoft Defender for Cloud has been largely negative due to a poor user experience."
"The pricing could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."
"The vulnerabilities are duplicated many times."
"An area where Microsoft Defender for Cloud could be improved is in getting away from having multiple menus that do the same thing, which seems imposing when looking at it."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"However, some Copilot features aren't available in the GCP environment. This is something we hope will be addressed in the future."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"Defender could improve how data is represented. It can be unstructured or slow to load. The recent update allowing policy grouping into control groups is beneficial, but further enhancements for speed and clarity are needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is reasonably priced and I rate it a four out of ten."
"The price of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is reasonable compared to the competition."
"It depends on the company size quite a bit."
"Its pricing is a little bit high in terms of Azure Security Center, but the good thing is that we don't need to maintain and deploy it. So, while the pricing is high, it is native to Azure which is why we prefer using this tool."
"This is a worldwide service and depending on the country, there will be different prices."
"Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost."
"They have a free version, but the license for this one isn't too high. It's free to start with, and you're charged for using it beyond 30 days. Some other pieces of Defender are charged based on usage, so you will be charged more for a high volume of transactions. I believe Defender for Cloud is a daily charge based on Azure's App Service Pricing."
"Pricing depends on your workload size, but it is very cheap. If you're talking about virtual machines, it is $5 or something for each machine, which is minimal. If you go for some agent-based solution for every virtual machine, then you need to pay the same thing or more than that. For an on-premises solution like this, we were paying around $30 to $50 based on size. With Defender, Microsoft doesn't bother about the size. You pay based on the number of machines. So, if you have 10 virtual machines, and 10 virtual machines are being monitored, you are paying based on that rather than the size of the virtual machine. Thus, you are paying for the number of units rather than paying for the size of your units."
"There are improvements that have to be made to the licensing. Currently, for servers, it has to be done by grouping the servers on a single subscription... We don't have an option whereby, if all those resources are in one subscription, we can have each of the individual servers subject to different planning."
"This solution is more cost-effective than some competing products. My understanding is that it is based on the number of integrations that you have, so if you have fewer subscriptions then you pay less for the service."
"I am not involved in this area. However, I believe its price is okay because even small customers are using Azure Security Center. I don't think it is very expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Healthcare Company
6%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Performing Arts
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
The current pricing of Zafran Security is fair overall. They were good to work with to accommodate our organization w...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
The dashboarding and reporting functionality of Zafran Security is an area that definitely could use some improvement...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
Zafran Security is helping reduce the amount of critical vulnerabilities in our environments that require prompt reme...
What do you like most about Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
There are companies that do vulnerability scans. However, what adds value is when two experts come and sit with you t...
What needs improvement with Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
The integration capabilities of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk with our existing security tools or workflows could be enhan...
How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening acros...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
 

Also Known As

No data available
No data available
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Zelle LLP, DNI Corp, Roper Pump, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.