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 Apr 6, 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
27th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (6th)
Arctic Wolf Managed Risk
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
28th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
7
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
76
Ranking in other categories
Container Management (9th), Container Security (4th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (2nd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (4th), Compliance Management (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 0.6%, 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 5.6%, up from 4.8% 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 are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"Zafran is an excellent tool."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"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."
"This solution has made huge strides in improving the awareness of our end users."
"We get access to quarterly reviews with their team."
"The customer support is incredible."
"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 reporting is really good from what I've seen so far."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its support for cloud-native services like Kubernetes, containers, managed storage, and databases. Protecting these without Microsoft Defender for Cloud would be extremely challenging. For threat protection specifically, I find the signature-based detection and heuristic detection features very effective."
"It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has improved our security poster by at least 100 percent."
"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."
"Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
 

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."
"The presentation of the data could be improved."
"Arctic Wolf Managed Risk needs to add more integrations."
"The major area for improvement is the lack of a patch management feature to resolve some of the vulnerabilities detected."
"The best way to take this product to the next level would be to implement a patch management solution."
"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."
"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 scalability could improve."
"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."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"If they had an easier way to display all the vulnerabilities of the machines affected and remediation steps on one screen rather than having to dive deep into each of them, that would be a lot easier."
"The range of workloads is broad, but we'd love to add more workloads and make it a single security solution that covers all those workloads."
"Support needs to be highly responsive, especially in large enterprise environments."
"The product must improve its UI."
"I've heard there might be issues with scalability for larger enterprises."
 

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."
"Defender's basic version is free, which is good. Many of our teams are evaluating the paid version against third-party products."
"Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost."
"The price of the solution is good for the features we receive and there is an additional cost for Microsoft premier support. However, some of my potential customers have found it to be expensive and have gone on to choose another solution."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is pricey, especially for Kubernetes clusters."
"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."
"I rate Microsoft Defender a three out of ten for affordability. The price could be a little lower."
"Understanding the costs of cloud services can be complicated at first. As with a lot of things in the cloud, it can be quite hard to understand the end cost, but it becomes clearer over time. Early on, the lack of transparency is a challenge. Microsoft does not tell you the cost when they launch something. It is clever marketing, and there is room for improvement there. There should be clarity from the start."
"We only use the free tier, so we haven't faced any pricing, setup costs, or licensing challenges."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Retailer
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
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?
I find that the pricing for Zafran aligns well with the comprehensive features it offers. The asset and user-based li...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
Zafran is a new startup. Features are continuously being added or improved. 1) Continued integrations with existing (...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
We connect this to our vulnerability scanner as input, our security tools to better determine risk, and our change ma...
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 presentation of the data could be improved. I believe they have significant room for improvement, particularly in...
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.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The cost is generally reasonable. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Plan 2 costs $15 per server, per month. For a normal c...
 

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: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.