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

Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 9, 2024

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
17th
Average Rating
9.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Continuous Threat Exposure Management (CTEM) (1st)
Arctic Wolf Managed Risk
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
34th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (11th)
Microsoft Defender Vulnerab...
Ranking in Vulnerability Management
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) (17th), Microsoft Security Suite (20th), Risk-Based Vulnerability Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2025, in the Vulnerability Management category, the mindshare of Zafran Security is 1.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Arctic Wolf Managed Risk is 1.2%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is 2.5%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Vulnerability Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management2.5%
Zafran Security1.1%
Arctic Wolf Managed Risk1.2%
Other95.2%
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.
Krishna R - PeerSpot reviewer
Achieve comprehensive endpoint and identity protection with continuous real-time monitoring
I have not thought about improvements for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management as of now, but this is typically an operational maintenance process. The operational maintenance process refers to these products being part of day-to-day operations. Threats keep coming almost daily, and we need to run it, prioritize the risk, and apply the patches. I am not able to think of many features for improvement at this point in time. There should be risk scoring added to Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management; specifically, they call it quantification of the risk. If they can provide peer site reviews or risk scoring, such as how my organization in the healthcare industry fares against my peers on average, it would be valuable information. This scoring should be for specific industries as well. If I belong to the healthcare industry using Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management, it should provide me with a risk score and show how I fare against the risk score of my industry. If there are guidelines or insights on this, it will compel customers to reduce risk levels or improve their risk scores. The application block capabilities in Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management are effective and up to the standards, as everybody is looking at open OSINT and open-source security packages. I think on CV scoring, they are aligned with the industry.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 is an excellent tool."
"We are able to see the real risk of a vulnerability on our environment with our security tools."
"We saw benefits from Zafran Security almost immediately after deploying it."
"Zafran has become an indispensable tool in our cybersecurity arsenal."
"This solution has made huge strides in improving the awareness of our end users."
"The reporting is really good from what I've seen so far."
"I appreciate the professionalism of the tool and have faith in the results it delivers."
"The user-friendly interface and customizable reporting have helped our IT team interpret and act on the platform's insights."
"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."
"We get access to quarterly reviews with their team."
"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."
"One valuable feature is the Microsoft Security Scorecard."
"A valuable feature is the ease of management and integration with Microsoft products."
"Overall, I would rate Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management a nine out of ten."
"The integration with SIEM is the best, specifically the native integration with Microsoft SIEM."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"The product’s most valuable features are compliance, recommendations, and inventories."
"Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management is versatile and assesses vulnerabilities, providing detailed information on CVEs, their categories, and exploit statuses."
"The recommendations, scores, and steps to remediate actions are highly useful."
 

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 best way to take this product to the next level would be to implement a patch management solution."
"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."
"There are some challenges with integrations in Arctic Wolf Managed Risk. Some integrations could be improved to enhance functionality."
"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 scalability could improve."
"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."
"Probably my only criticism would be the cost. It is expensive."
"The product is not stable; it is very resource-intensive, consuming a lot of memory and CPU, which makes it slow."
"The constant changes in the product configuration or the console setup can sometimes be challenging."
"There is a good solution from Microsoft, however, there is a gap between Windows and Linux management."
"There should be risk scoring added to Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management; specifically, they call it quantification of the risk."
"The documentation from Microsoft needs significant improvement. The documents are disorganized, with one document linking to another, making the steps unclear and difficult to follow."
"They may need to improve the portal refresh rate for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management because it takes time for recommendations to disappear after mitigation; sometimes, it takes one week, when it should ideally take only one to two hours."
"The automated remediations can be more specific."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It depends on the company size quite a bit."
"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."
"The product’s pricing is medium."
"The licensing model follows a per-user per-month structure."
"I rate the product's price a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price."
"The tool is a bit costly."
"The licensing costs are reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vulnerability Management solutions are best for your needs.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
8%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise3
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Zafran Security?
Since we stood Zafran Security up in our private cloud, we handle the maintenance on our side. As we opted not to use...
What needs improvement with Zafran Security?
In terms of areas for improvement, Zafran Security is doing a really great job as a new and emerging company. Oftenti...
What is your primary use case for Zafran Security?
My use cases for Zafran Security revolve around two primary areas. One is around vulnerability management and priorit...
What needs improvement with Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
There are some challenges with integrations in Arctic Wolf Managed Risk. Some integrations could be improved to enhan...
What advice do you have for others considering Arctic Wolf Managed Risk?
We will proceed with publishing the review on the platform, making it available to other users. The link will be prov...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
I would rate the price as a three for us due to the partnership discounts. For non-partners, however, the cost could ...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management?
I have not thought about improvements for Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management as of now, but this is typicall...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Zelle LLP, DNI Corp, Roper Pump, Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Arctic Wolf Managed Risk vs. Microsoft Defender Vulnerability Management and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
872,922 professionals have used our research since 2012.