We performed a comparison between Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration 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.
Comparison Results: Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration outperforms Microsoft Defender for Cloud among our reviewers. Check Point Harmony seamlessly integrates with different platforms and services, offers advanced data leak prevention features, and provides comprehensive monitoring. Microsoft Defender for Cloud received mixed reviews for its customer service, support, setup process, and licensing experience.
"It is the collaboration between users inside the company. It is a big advantage with Check Point to be able to work together on the same document."
"We are able to protect sensitive business data and maintain regulatory compliance with advanced data leak prevention (DLP)."
"Its characteristics are adapted to the most modern threats."
"It is very intuitive. It is a point and click type of deal."
"Check Point's technical support is very good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the phishing protection it offers."
"This DLP is very useful, as it gives our users additional protection."
"I can count the number of endpoints, emails, and collaborations being used in the environment."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."
"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."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"The business team should be further expanded, and more peer feedback should be made available publicly to have better and complete visibility of the application globally."
"The NAVEX metrics that I have been using on the CloudGuard dashboard cannot be exported. If they were to add report exporting capabilities on each of metric objects on the dashboard, that would be awesome."
"The left-hand feature can be made more granular for the implementation of the policy."
"Although it has good characteristics, it should improve the graphical interface and the latency that it sometimes presents."
"The solution fails to support hybrid deployments."
"From time to time, the system's administrators notice the increase in the false-positive alerts being reported by CloudGuard SaaS."
"There is too much functionality, which makes it difficult to use. More guidance for users would be helpful."
"Stability has been a pain point. I was going back and forth with my product engineer and project manager for a couple of months. I had the product in a demonstration mode and wasn't satisfied with the results initially. After a few alterations and a few revisions later, it is fine."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"Agent features need to be improved. They support agents through Azure Arc or Workbench. Sometimes, we are not able to get correct signals from the machines on which we have installed these agents. We are not able to see how many are currently reporting to Azure Security Center, and how many are currently not reporting. For example, we have 1,000 machines, and we have enrolled 1,000 OMS agents on these machines to collect the log. When I look at the status, even though at some places, it shows that it is connected, but when I actually go and check, I'm not getting any alerts from those. There are some discrepancies on the agent, and the agent features are not up to the mark."
"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."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
"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."
More Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration Pricing and Cost Advice →
Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration is ranked 8th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 47 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration writes "Has a user-friendly dashboard, a great anti-phishing algorithm, and sandboxing for testing". 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 Harmony Email & Collaboration is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Avanan, Mimecast Email Security, Cisco Secure Email and Barracuda Email Protection, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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.
