We performed a comparison between Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platforms) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The Explorer allows you to know the traffic between source and destination."
"The most valuable feature of Illumio Adaptive Security Platform is monitoring. When I have no requirement from the other application, I can use the web block traffic to build."
"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"The customer service is lagging a bit. It could be better."
"Illumio Adaptive Security Platform could improve by supporting more operating systems. For example, Cisco and Apache appliances."
"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."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"I felt that there was disconnection in terms of understanding the UI. The communication for moving from the old UI to the new UI could be improved. It was a bit awkward."
"Azure's system could be more on point like AWS support. For example, if I have an issue with AWS, I create a support ticket, then I get a call or a message. With Azure support, you raise a ticket, and somebody calls back depending on their availability and the priority, which might not align with your business priority."
"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 overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"The solution's portal is very easy to use, but there's one key component that is missing when it comes to managing policies. For example, if I've onboarded my server and I need to specify antivirus policies, there's no option to do that on the portal. I will have to go to Intune to deploy them. That is one main aspect that is missing and it's worrisome."
"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."
More Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation Pricing and Cost Advice →
Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation is ranked 13th in CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platforms) with 2 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platforms) with 32 reviews. Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation writes "Great auto policy writing and good mapping with an easy setup process". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides good recommendations and makes policy administration easy". Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation is most compared with Guardicore Centra, Cisco Secure Workload, VMware NSX, Zscaler Internet Access and Forescout Platform, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with Microsoft 365 Defender, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS GuardDuty, Trend Micro Cloud One Workload Security and Guardicore Centra. See our Illumio Zero Trust Segmentation vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platforms) vendors.
We monitor all CWPP (Cloud Workload Protection Platforms) 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.