We performed a comparison between Akamai Guardicore Segmentation and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its deception features are great, providing a rich telemetry of lured origins, and are a great resource for any active defense strategy."
"From day one, you get threat intelligence. It will immediately block active threats, which has been useful."
"Application Ring-Fencing and Deception Server, which is basically like a honeypot, are pretty useful features."
"The tool is a complete package that offers many features like visibility. You can get a graph with real-time workflows and visibility into server-to-server communication. We get visibility into many things happening within our environment."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the maps and ring fencing that help monitor events."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of processes and connections."
"Initially, I liked the telemetry part. But later, we used the microsegmentation features that we were able to deploy and found that they really stood out from other vendors. It allows us to see microsegmentation as distributed services."
"The real bonus is the fact that we can secure applications, all the way down to the individual services, on each host. It's actually more granular security than we can get out of a traditional firewall."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"The main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"It takes very little effort to integrate it. It also gives very good visibility into what exactly is happening."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"The product needs a few features like enhanced user policies and payload-level inspection to improve the offering."
"Needs more customization of honeypots and a vaster catalog of systems able to be mimicked."
"Supports become difficult when it's for a big organization. For a small organization, medium organization, it still makes sense, however, for a big organization, it makes life difficult."
"Customers would want to see the cost improved."
"Kubernetes is not installed in the way we need it."
"Sometimes, the speed needs improvement, especially when it comes to the generation of maps, where it can be a bit slow."
"They can maybe improve their customer service just because they are kind of a small organization, and customer service isn't as big as others such as VMware."
"It doesn't support a PAAC solution (Platforma as a service) in the cloud."
"Microsoft sources most of their threat intelligence internally, but I think they should open themselves up to bodies that provide feel intelligence to build a better engine. There may be threats out there that they don't report because their team is not doing anything on that and they don't have arrangements with another party that is involved in that research."
"From a compliance standpoint, they can include some more metrics and some specific compliances such as GDPR."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"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 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."
More Akamai Guardicore Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is ranked 13th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 17 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Akamai Guardicore Segmentation writes "Allowed us to build out a data center topology without worrying about placement of physical or virtual firewalls that can create bottlenecks". 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". Akamai Guardicore Segmentation is most compared with Illumio, VMware NSX, Cisco Secure Workload, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Deep Security, 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 Akamai Guardicore Segmentation 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.
