We performed a comparison between Forescout Platform 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: Forescout Platform stands out for its agentless visibility and advanced features like device fingerprinting. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is highly regarded for its automated processes, advanced threat analysis, and extensive security measures, including protection against ransomware and access controls. Forescout users say the product could be better at resolving connectivity and license issues. Users also want more compatibility with different devices and operating systems, along with better logging and troubleshooting capabilities. Microsoft Defender for Cloud could use enhancements in automation and ease of use.
Service and Support: Some users reported positive experiences with Forescout support, but others requested better responsiveness and training. Some Defender for Cloud users reported positive experiences with Microsoft, while others complained that the solution's outsourced support lacked technical knowledge.
Ease of Deployment: Some users found Forescout’s setup to be simple and adaptable, while others perceived it as more complex and time-intensive. The initial setup of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is described as straightforward, but the deployment time may vary depending on specific requirements.
Pricing: The total cost of Forescout Platform can be high depending on the level of customization and integration required. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is in the mid-to-high pricing tier. While some users find it expensive, others believe it offers good value.
ROI: Forescout Platform yields a solid ROI by improving network access control and overall security. Microsoft Defender for Cloud streamlines security tasks and saves users money by consolidating various solutions.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Forescout Platform over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Users appreciate its agentless visibility, policy flexibility, and seamless integration with multiple vendors. It also provides comprehensive device and version clarity and excellent support. Microsoft Defender for Cloud falls short in terms of visibility and flexibility compared to Forescout Platform. Forescout Platform is also considered to be more cost-effective than Microsoft Defender for Cloud.
"The user management has been very easy for the most part."
"The visibility is the main benefit. We now know how many devices are connected, what the use for each device is and what kind of devices we have in our environment."
"Being able to sort on device types or devices with open ports is helpful when narrowing down assets of possible misconfigured devices that may be vulnerable on the network. We can take action on those devices based off of corporate policy."
"The interface is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the blocking of USB devices."
"Within three or four days, we have complete visibility of your infrastructure on the network. Compared to other solutions, the deployment of the solution is easier and we can close the project quickly."
"The standout strength of this solution lies in its unique capability to effectively manage unmanaged switches."
"The most valuable feature of the Forescout Platform it's highly customizable and flexible."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"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."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"Good compliance policies."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"It is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"When we automate an email to send to a user, sometimes it gets blocked, but that has nothing to do with Forescout. It depends on the mail gateway that we use or integrate with."
"We have found that the agent-based authentication, available within this solution could be improved."
"Forescout Platform needs to improve how the device works in preventing rogue servers."
"Although Forescout manages endpoints and network devices, there is no capability for user management."
"The initial setup was complex."
"More detailed analysis during the authentication process, especially for troubleshooting access issues. We have found that troubleshooting RADIUS controls is quite arduous, as it is today. A trace function could easily resolve this by providing a means by which access issues from a certificate to passwords or accounts could easily be identified and remediated."
"The biggest disadvantage is the pricing."
"The solution could always improve by adding more features to make it more robust."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"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."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"The solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services."
"When you work with it, the only problem that we're struggling with is that we have 21 different subscriptions we're trying to apply security to. It's impossible to keep everything organized."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
Forescout Platform is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 69 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Forescout Platform is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Forescout Platform writes "We can go granular on each endpoint, quarantine non-compliant machines, and target vulnerabilities through scripting". 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". Forescout Platform is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Fortinet FortiNAC, Nozomi Networks and Armis, 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 Forescout Platform vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) 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.
