We performed a comparison between Azure Bastion and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It provides all the security to us. Without getting on the internet, we can access our servers. We can access our desktop through our web browser. We don't need to run the mstsc command and login to the VM. All those things are not required."
"The connection to virtual machines is very useful."
"Azure Bastion makes it easy to provide quick virtual machine access to our customers."
"The interface is available in the edit portal."
"The product's setup is easy."
"As an Azure consultant, for me, it is the best way to give the administrator access as you can manage the permission - including who can access Bastion."
"The most significant advantage lies in its runbook features, particularly beneficial for our infrastructure team."
"The ability to operate the product with scripting is excellent."
"Defender for Cloud is a plug-and-play solution that provides continuous posture management once enabled."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"One of the features that I like about the solution is it is both a hybrid cloud and also multi-cloud. We never know what company we're going to buy, and therefore we are ready to go. If they have GCP or AWS, we have support for that as well. It offers a single-panel blast across multiple clouds."
"The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"We are not able to copy and paste files directly into the server over the patch host. We have to transfer files over to Azure Storage."
"You are charged for retrieving your own data."
"When you have a boot issue on Windows, you cannot use Azure Bastion to fix it. You have to use the Azure console or the VM console, and it is very limited."
"There are some challenges because Bastion is more compatible with Edge but not with the other browsers. As an organization, it doesn't make sense that we have to use only Edge. We should be able to access Bastion over Chrome, Mozilla, or Opera. It should be our choice."
"The protocol speed could be faster."
"While general support is valuable, having a detailed breakdown of the specific issues would contribute to a more streamlined and efficient resolution process."
"The solution breaks down sometimes."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"Consistency is the area where the most improvement is needed. For example, there are some areas where the UI is not uniform across the board."
"I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"Defender is occasionally unreliable. It isn't 100% efficient in terms of antivirus detection, but it isn't an issue most of the time. It's also somewhat difficult to train new security analysts to use Defender."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
Azure Bastion is ranked 17th in Microsoft Security Suite with 8 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Microsoft Security Suite with 46 reviews. Azure Bastion is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Azure Bastion writes "Has good scalability and provides secure access to the virtual machines ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". Azure Bastion is most compared with Azure Firewall, Azure Front Door, TeamViewer Remote Management, Microsoft Sentinel and Microsoft Entra ID, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Azure Bastion vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.
