Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Imperva Data Security vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Imperva Data Security
Ranking in Data Security Posture Management (DSPM)
13th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Data Security Posture Management (DSPM)
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Container Security (6th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (2nd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Microsoft Security Suite (7th), Compliance Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) category, the mindshare of Imperva Data Security is 1.5%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 12.5%, down from 14.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Data Security Posture Management (DSPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Samuel Adeyemi - PeerSpot reviewer
Real-time data monitoring and policy-based activity blocking enhance security and awareness
The development mode on the platform needs improvement. For example, the archiving functionalities should be enhanced to allow easy conversion of archived logs into CSV or Excel formats for data analysis. When I need to investigate with archived data, the inability to export to these formats can be limiting. Making this process easier would be beneficial for reviews.
Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The time to detect vulnerabilities has gotten a lot quicker."
"The benefits are operational. The outcome comes from preventing an attack on the organization. On the operational side, you generally have good, decent security measures for your application, database, and digital assets."
"I recommend the product to other users."
"If something malicious occurs, I can set a policy to block it, review the action, and decide whether to release it if it's found not to be malicious."
"The most valuable features include a great level of automation, machine learning for attack validation, and a very flexible and comfortable management console."
"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."
"With respect to improving our security posture, it helps us to understand where we are in terms of compliance. We can easily know when we are below the standard because of the scores it calculates."
"The pricing is good."
"It alerts us to our vulnerabilities and ensures compliance by marking off a compliance tool checklist."
"Some of the most valuable features of Microsoft Defender for Cloud include its effectiveness in threat detection through unsupervised machine learning, CTI, and advanced sandboxing."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the comprehensive overview across different workloads. It allows us to see protection not just across one workload, such as virtual machines, containers, infrastructure, or data, but across all our workloads. This overall visibility is really helpful."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has definitely helped us manage and secure our multi-cloud environment by providing ease of use."
 

Cons

"The development mode on the platform needs improvement."
"One area for improvement is the inclusion of a load balancer in on-premises solutions."
"The deployment is not easy."
"Imperva Data Security needs to improve first-level support."
"The development mode on the platform needs improvement. For example, the archiving functionalities should be enhanced to allow easy conversion of archived logs into CSV or Excel formats for data analysis."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"However, some Copilot features aren't available in the GCP environment. This is something we hope will be addressed in the future."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"With the new Copilot functionality available everywhere, it is challenging to pinpoint areas for improvement. If I put in a lot of thought, I might identify things, but right now, nothing significant pops into my mind, but there is always room for more transparency, especially in pricing."
"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."
"If they had an easier way to display all the vulnerabilities of the machines affected and remediation steps on one screen rather than having to dive deep into each of them, that would be a lot easier."
"My experience with Microsoft Defender for Cloud has been largely negative due to a poor user experience."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is reasonably good in South Africa."
"I am not involved in this area. However, I believe its price is okay because even small customers are using Azure Security Center. I don't think it is very expensive."
"The solution is expensive, and I rate it a five to six out of ten."
"I'm not privy to that information, but I know it's probably close to a million dollars a year."
"It is bundled with our enterprise subscription, which makes it easy to go for it. It is available by default, and there is no extra cost for using the standard features."
"Defender's basic version is free, which is good. Many of our teams are evaluating the paid version against third-party products."
"I am not involved much with the pricing but the bundle offering is good."
"This solution is more cost-effective than some competing products. My understanding is that it is based on the number of integrations that you have, so if you have fewer subscriptions then you pay less for the service."
"Defender for Cloud is pretty costly for a single line. It's incredibly high to pay monthly for security per server. The cost is considerable for an enterprise with 500-plus virtual machines, and the monthly bill can spike."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
12%
University
12%
Insurance Company
11%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Imperva Data Security?
The price is high, but it is not as high as competitors like IBM, Guardian, and Oracle. It cannot be considered low-priced.
What needs improvement with Imperva Data Security?
The development mode on the platform needs improvement. For example, the archiving functionalities should be enhanced to allow easy conversion of archived logs into CSV or Excel formats for data an...
What is your primary use case for Imperva Data Security?
We onboard databases with Imperva Data Security. I can put its policies around the environment I want to monitor. I can see it actually works if I want to prevent certain activities.
How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening across your ecosystem. It also has great remote workforce capabilities and supports a...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Imperva Data Security vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.