We performed a comparison between AWS GuardDuty and SUSE NeuVector based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: AWS GuardDuty offers consolidated data collection and alerts. Users like GuardDuty's ability to monitor AWS accounts without extra costs and analyze logs from various sources. SUSE NeuVector is commended for its integration with CI/CD pipelines and automation. AWS GuardDuty users requested a mobile version for remote workers, more dashboard analytics, and improvements to GuardDuty's threat intelligence platform. SUSE NeuVector could add support for scanning IaaS and virtual machines and improve integration with other security tools.
Service and Support: Customers of AWS GuardDuty have praised the Amazon team for their exceptional customer service, describing support as fast and responsive. SUSE NeuVector users find the support process to be complex, but they describe the support team as knowledgeable and helpful.
Ease of Deployment: AWS GuardDuty's initial setup process has been praised for its simplicity and efficiency. Some SUSE NeuVector users thought the setup was easy, while others perceive it as complex and challenging. Users noted that technical expertise is required to integrate NeuVector with pipelines.
Pricing: AWS GuardDuty has a competitive pay-go pricing model with different tiers, and the total cost depends on data usage. SUSE NeuVector is generally considered affordable, and customers can negotiate discounts based on the number of users. Reviewers noted that customers must pay for support separately.
ROI: AWS GuardDuty delivers value by enhancing overall security and building trust, potentially opening up new business prospects. SUSE NeuVector yields the greatest returns for high-risk sectors such as financial services, but its ROI may be limited for other sectors, such as retail.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer AWS GuardDuty over SUSE NeuVector. AWS GuardDuty offers a single cloud-based solution for data collection and alerts, allowing users to monitor their AWS accounts without any additional costs. Users find the setup process for AWS GuardDuty to be simple and easy, while SUSE NeuVector can be tricky to deploy without expertise.
"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 way it monitors accounts is definitely a very important feature."
"What I like most about Amazon GuardDuty is that you can monitor your AWS accounts across, but you don't have to pay the additional cost. You can get all your CloudTrail VPC flow logs and DNS logs all in one, and then you get the monitoring with that. A lot of times, if you had a separate tool on-premise, you would have to set up your DNS logs, so usually, Amazon GuardDuty helps with all your additional networking requirements, so I utilize it for continuous monitoring because you can't detect anything if you're not monitoring, and the solution fills that gap. If you don't do anything else first, you can deploy your firewall, and then you've got your Route 53 DNS and DNSSEC, but then Amazon GuardDuty fills that, and then you have audit requirements in AU that says, "Hey, what are your additional logs?", so you can just say, "Hey, we utilize Amazon GuardDuty." You're getting your CloudTrail, your VPC flow logs, and all your DNS logs, and those are your additional logs right there, so the solution meets a lot of requirements. Now, everything comes with a cost, but I also like that the solution also provides threat response and remediation. It's a pretty good product. I've just used it more for log analysis and that's where the value is at, the niche value. Once you do threat detection, it goes into a lot of other integrations you need to implement, so threat detection is only good as the integration, as the user that knows the tools itself, and the architecture and how it's all set up and the rules that you set within that."
"The out-of-band malware detection from the EBS volumes. It's really cool. No agents or anything needed, it automatically finds and correlates based on malware."
"It helps us detect brute-force attacks based on machine learning."
"Deployment is great, and we didn't face any big challenges."
"The product has automated protection powered by AI/ML, which is now far more powerful than before. It uses AI/ML in its detection algorithm, providing fast and quick results."
"It is a highly scalable solution since it is a service by AWS. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is the performance, deployment, and cost."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"AWS GuardDuty sometimes shows false positives and should have better detection accuracy."
"Improvement-wise, Amazon GuardDuty should have an overall dashboard analytics function so we could see what's in the current environment, and then in addition to that, provide best practices and recommendations, particularly to provide some type of observability, and then figure out the login side of it, based on our current environment, in terms of what we're not monitoring and what we should monitor. The solution should also give us a sample code configuration to implement that added feature or feature request. What I'd like to see in the next release of Amazon GuardDuty are more security analytics, reporting, and monitoring. They should provide recommendations and additional options that answer questions such as "Hey, what can we see in our environment?", "What should we implement within the environment?", What's recommended?" We know that cost will always be associated with that, but Amazon GuardDuty should show us the increased costs or decreased costs if we implement it or don't implement it, and that would be a good feature request, particularly with all products within AWS, just for cloud products in general because there are times features are implemented, but once they're deployed, they don't tell you about costs that would be generated along with those features. After features are deployed, there should a summary of the costs that would be generated, and projected based on current usage, so they would give us the option to figure out how long we're going to use those features and the option to keep those on or turn those off. If more services were like that, a lot more people would use those on the cloud."
"Because it's a threat detection service, they need to keep up with the various threat factors because new threat factors and attack factors come up all the time."
"While sending the alerts to the email, they are not being patched. we have to do the patching and mapping manually. If GuardDuty could include a feature to do this automatically, it will make our job easier. That is something I believe can be improved."
"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."
"For the next release, they could provide IPS features as well."
"We currently find Lacework to be much better at detecting vulnerabilities than AWS GuardDuty. The engines of AWS GuardDuty have to be improved."
"I work in a bank, and it would be good if AWS GuardDuty could be integrated with other monitoring and detection tools we use."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
"The documentation needs to improve a bit."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
AWS GuardDuty is ranked 4th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 19 reviews while SUSE NeuVector is ranked 15th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 7 reviews. AWS GuardDuty is rated 8.2, while SUSE NeuVector is rated 7.8. 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 SUSE NeuVector writes "Good value for money; great for policy management". AWS GuardDuty is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, Wiz and Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP, whereas SUSE NeuVector is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, Sysdig Falco and Sysdig Secure. See our AWS GuardDuty vs. SUSE NeuVector 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.
