We performed a comparison between Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Cloud includes regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and UEBA, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management provides granular level reports, governance and administration portal panel, and comprehensive security features for data governance. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has room for improvement in consistency, customization, automation, and integration, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management needs expanded reporting options, reduced price, and better integration with third-party software.
Service and Support: Both Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management have received mixed reviews for their customer service, with some users reporting positive experiences and others facing frustration or stating that technical support needs improvement.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is easy to set up and does not require infrastructure deployment, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management may be more complicated and require vendor support or multiple administrators. Both solutions are user-friendly.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers a range of license options with varying metrics, while Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management's pricing is based on the size of the cloud infrastructure. Check Point's setup cost is affordable and easy, but some reviewers express concern that Microsoft Defender for Cloud may be too costly for small or startup businesses.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides basic security features that may or may not provide a good ROI depending on the company's needs. On the other hand, Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management offers a high ROI growth rate along with essential compliance and asset protection.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management due to its valuable features such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is also more automated and easier to use, with incident alerts and collaborative services.
"The automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"I like Wiz's reporting, and it's easy to do queries. For example, it's pretty simple to find out how many servers we have and the applications installed on each. I like Wiz's security graph because you can use it to see the whole organization even if you have multiple accounts."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"The solution is scalable."
"The dashboard is intuitive. You know if you're compliant or not, and then it gives you a remediation plan."
"The most valuable feature is the single dashboard that enables us to manage the entire cloud environment from one place."
"This solution helps to keep everything visible, and it also alerts us if something is wrong, such as if someone opened extra ports or services that they are not supposed to. This is a valuable tool for monitoring and maintaining our cloud environment."
"The ability to integrate it with Microsoft Azure Sentinel allows us to validate the logs in an even more complex and meaningful way."
"Its monitoring and alerts are triggered by a failure or non-compliance with policies. It helps us to be able to act effectively and quickly."
"The user interface is responsive and quite intuitive; when selecting an object it automatically shows the relevant actions."
"We have more visibility than ever before, appreciating the valuable and proactive insight that we receive from the platform."
"Good compliance policies."
"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"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."
"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."
"Microsoft Defender has a lot of features including regulatory compliance and attaching workbooks but the most valuable is the recommendations it provides for each and every resource when we open Microsoft Defender."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"We're looking at some of the data compliance stuff that they've got Jon offer. I know they're looking at container security, which we gonna be looking at next."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"We wish there were a way, beyond providing visibility and automated remediation, to wait on a given remediation, due to a critical aspect, such as the cost associated with a particular upgrade... We would like to see preventive controls that can be applied through Wiz to protect against vulnerabilities that we're not going to be able to remediate immediately."
"The reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"Wiz's reporting capabilities could be refined a bit. They are making headway on that, but more executive-style dashboards would be nice. They just implemented a community aspect where you can share documents and feedback. This was something users had been requesting for a while. They are listening to customer feedback and making changes."
"I would like to see Test B functions at the application access level."
"I’d like to see more integration with third-party tools. For example, it would be helpful to have an integration between Dome9 and ServiceNow to manage security incidents and security changes."
"The user interface could be improved. Sometimes, the visibility is not immediately available for the environment. We have the native servers that come with the solutions, but we cannot see them in the Check Point log. Another issue is with the integrated file monitoring. It would make sense to have stuff like file integrity monitoring and malware scanning available within this module because we don't want to integrate another product."
"I'd like to see more advanced encryption for local features, which is not present right now."
"We want to be able to customize the solution more in order to meet the needs of our company."
"The support must be more effective."
"Making basic rules is easy, but it's complex if you want to do something a little more nuanced. I've been unable to make some rules that I wanted. I couldn't evaluate some values or parameters of the components I look for. I haven't always been able to assess them."
"Adding a feature that allows me to easily identify the changes that have been made to the CIS benchmark and update my own policy accordingly would be a valuable addition to Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management."
"The documentation and implementation guides could be improved."
"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."
"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."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"Customizing some of the compliance requirements based on individual needs seems like the biggest area of improvement. There should be an option to turn specific controls on and off based on how your solution is configured."
"The initial setup is not actually so complex but it feels complex because there are many add-ons. There are many options and my team needs to be aware of all of these changes happening on the backend which is a distraction."
Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is ranked 3rd in Compliance Management with 60 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Compliance Management with 46 reviews. Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP writes "Threat intel integration provides us visibility in case any workload is communicating with suspicious or blacklisted IPs". 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". Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Qualys VMDR, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Vision One - Cloud Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our Check Point CloudGuard CNAPP vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors, best Container Management vendors, and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Compliance Management 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.
