We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps and Saviynt based on real PeerSpot user reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is the preferred choice over Saviynt as it provides comprehensive threat protection, anti-spam capabilities, and integration with other Microsoft technologies. Users appreciate the real-time graphical data and ability to monitor applications at an enterprise level. Although there is room for improvement in features, integration, and pricing, Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps has provided various returns on investment for organizations, including cost reductions, faster reaction times, and increased uptime. Overall, it is considered a valuable add-on to existing Microsoft licenses.
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable features are the antivirus as a whole, the anti-malware, and all of the protection features that scan our enterprise devices."
"The protection offered by the product is the most valuable feature. It detects vulnerabilities or traps on our users' phones and then prompts them to clean up their devices. Tools we used previously would only discover, which required us to gather information on the backend, so Lookout is a welcome upgrade."
"On the outside, the main differentiation is because Lookout ingest. They have ingested basically all of the apps for the last ten years and all the versions of all the apps, and we have that in a corporate database that allows us to do very large-scale machine learning and analysis on that data set. That's not something that any of the competitors really have the capability to do because they don't have access to the data set. A lot of the apps you can no longer get them because that version of the app is five or six years old, and it just doesn't exist anywhere anymore, except within our infrastructure. So, the ability to have that very rich dataset and learn from that dataset is a real differentiator."
"Better logging allows us to find problems and take appropriate steps to lock them out."
"Defender helps us control which applications are being used and gain more security insight into remote and hybrid users based on user identity and log in location. You can also integrate Defender for Cloud Apps with Defender for Endpoint to extend its capabilities."
"One of the most valuable features is auditing. Some of the other protection services have issues with auditing. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has an excellent auditing technique that helps us avoid the risk of filtering or information loss. You can use different tools to guarantee these things. It allows you to conduct an in-depth exploration of applications, users, and files that are harmful or suspicious. You can also enhance your security setup by creating personalized rules or policies that help you better control traffic in the cloud."
"Threat detection is its key feature, and that's why we use this tool. It gives an alert if a PC is attacked or there is any kind of anomaly, such as there is a spike in sending emails or we see an unauthorized website being accessed. So, it keeps us on our toes. We get to know that there is something wrong, and we can isolate the user and find any issues with it. So, threat detection is very robust in this tool."
"If your business requirements are relatively simple, it can get the job done."
"The product helps us with privileged identity management to control who has access to what and for how long."
"Everything from Microsoft is integrated. You receive regular reports on them all. You can push your reports, logs, and security alerts, which are all integrated. It is crucial that these solutions work natively together to deliver coordinated detection and response across our environment."
"The most valuable feature is the alerting system."
"This product works well out of the box and if you don’t want to do a lot of configuration then this is the best tool."
"The workflow in Saviynt is easier compared to other tools. It's pretty straightforward."
"Some of the self-service capabilities are quite powerful."
"The product is flexible to use."
"We have found the implementation process to be very easy."
"It's a highly functional system and a very well rounded solution. The onboarding of applications is solid. Their user access reviews are very good. Their role-based model and their identity life cycle stuff are solid. It's a very well rounded, strong product."
"Saviynt has better integration with enterprise systems like SAP, Microsoft, Adobe, and AWS."
"It's easy to manage and easy to use; a simple tool for end-users."
"Lookout was moving into the SSE space. And so their work on SecureWeb Gateway and SD-WAN is still sort of evolving."
"We just submitted an enhancement request reflecting the main area we want to see improvement in; the APIs. Currently, we're able to build dashboards, but it's somewhat backward because we use our MDM API to create them. Lookout should provide API to customers so we can query our data and use it in our cloud, and this is the only outstanding area for improvement with the product right now."
"The stability depends on the service from where you access it. Because sometimes, the place you are in, you have Gateway. You don't have Gateway. The gateway is overutilized. At the end, you need to go through their gateways. And this is the key point here. You have a tracking point. If it's not well orchestrated, and it scales up as you add more to the existing team, you will suffer"
"From the analysis that we've done, they do seem to be maybe a step behind in trying to enter the market with a new solution. But when they do pick up, they do come out with some good products."
"Sometimes the support is actually lacking."
"I would like more customization of notifications. Currently, you either get everything or you get limited information. I would like to have something in between where we can customize the data that is included in notifications."
"It doesn't actually decrease the time to respond. This has been an issue with Microsoft recently. Sometimes, there is a delay when it comes to getting an alert policy email... Sometimes it takes two or three hours for that email to be sent."
"I would prefer to have filtering options incorporated within the policies, enabling the solution to perform tasks beyond mere blocking or allowing."
"They need to improve the attack surface reduction (ASR) rules. In the latest version, you can implement ASR rules, which are quite useful, but you have to enable those because if they're not enabled, they flag false positives. In the Defender portal, it logs a block for WMI processes and PowerShell. Apparently, it's because ASR rules are not configured. So, you generally have to enable them to exclude, for example, WMI queries or PowerShell because they have a habit of blocking your security scanners. It's a bit weird that they have to be enabled to be configured, and it's not the other way around."
"Defender for Cloud apps is primarily useful for Azure apps. It has limited capabilities for applications based on other cloud platforms."
"They should continue integration with all other Microsoft security-related products. The integration with all the other products is still ongoing."
"Sometimes, we'll get false positive alarms. For example, when a SharePoint path has no file sharing, but there is an external user, it will trigger an alarm that the file has been shared with an external user... the alerting mechanism should be more precise when giving you an alert about what activity has been done with the file..."
"The solution is hosted on AWS cloud, and there is some dependency that affects our bottom line."
"The product's stability is not easy to maintain."
"The product lacks a broad user base which makes it difficult sometimes to find answers to questions about the product."
"According to feedback I've received, some users prefer SailPoint over Saviynt in real complex environments. SailPoint has its provisioning platform. Complex integrations may pose challenges in scenarios like a large bank with thousands of users, making SailPoint a preferred choice for some."
"The main difficulty was the integration process itself. But we were able to kind of work through it and fix it. We tried integrating with our HR system and other IBM solutions, like Microsoft Identity Management."
"The tool is difficult to migrate."
"In terms of improvement, it's really just a matter of them getting more mature. It's a relatively new solution and they probably need to streamline a few of the processes as they mature. But there are not too many problems."
"Saviynt cannot customize based on customer needs."
More Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is ranked 2nd in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 30 reviews while Saviynt is ranked 7th in Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) with 20 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is rated 8.4, while Saviynt is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps writes "Integrates well and helps us in protecting sensitive information, but takes time to scan and apply the policies and cannot detect everything we need". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Saviynt writes "Offers a good alerting system and integrates with SIEM solutions but main difficulty was the integration process". Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps is most compared with Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco Umbrella, Netskope , Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and Forcepoint CASB, whereas Saviynt is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Microsoft Entra ID, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Okta Workforce Identity and Microsoft Identity Manager. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps vs. Saviynt report.
See our list of best Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB) 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.