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

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Microsoft Purview Audit comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
79
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Container Security (7th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (1st), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (4th), Compliance Management (5th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (2nd)
Microsoft Purview Audit
Ranking in Microsoft Security Suite
31st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Log Management (36th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Microsoft Security Suite category, the mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 6.0%, down from 8.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Purview Audit is 1.0%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Microsoft Security Suite Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud6.0%
Microsoft Purview Audit1.0%
Other93.0%
Microsoft Security Suite
 

Featured 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.
Matthew Hoerig - PeerSpot reviewer
Audit function refines log retrieval and drives application assessments with evolving features
From a service assessment and authorization process perspective, when conducting an assessment on an application or system, we use controls essentially equivalent to the NIST 800-53 framework. This includes examining audit logs, data quality, and various KPIs required for log configuration. It factors into our application assessments. When producing documentation packages for application or system authorization, audit logging and monitoring are crucial parts of the assessment process. The evidence we gather includes screenshots and outputs from these tools and capabilities. For Microsoft Purview Audit specifically, we provide examples of audit function configuration and log output details, which are incorporated into our evidence documents.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are the security recommendations provided by Defender for Cloud."
"The solution is quite good and addresses many security gaps."
"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 most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"The most valuable feature is the hunting feature, which integrates well into the entire Microsoft ecosystem."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has significantly enhanced our overall security posture by approximately 20 to 25 percent."
"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a nine out of 10."
"Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture."
"The platform has significantly enhanced our operational insight into the overall Microsoft 365 environment."
"We're easily saving at least one hour per day using this solution."
"The overall user experience with Microsoft Purview Audit is of higher quality than when it was branded as Compliance Center, and Microsoft consistently updates and evolves functionalities and the overall experience."
 

Cons

"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"The pricing could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."
"However, some Copilot features aren't available in the GCP environment. This is something we hope will be addressed in the future."
"If a customer is already using Okta as an SSO in its entire environment, they will want to continue with it. But Security Center doesn't understand that and keeps making recommendations. It would help if it let us resolve a recommendation, even if it is not implemented."
"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."
"Defender is occasionally unreliable. It isn't 100% efficient in terms of antivirus detection, but it isn't an issue most of the time. It's also somewhat difficult to train new security analysts to use Defender."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is pricey, especially for Kubernetes clusters. It could be cheaper."
"Although Microsoft Defender for Cloud is based on security, I wish it went beyond providing assessments, reports, and generic steps. More detailed procedures would be helpful, especially for lower-level support staff."
"Areas for product improvement include enhancing customization options and integrating more comprehensive compliance features."
"We are still in the early stages of leveraging Microsoft Purview Audit. Currently, it's primarily used for the audit function."
"We do have a Denial of Access happening."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is very difficult because every type of Defender for Cloud has its own metrics and pricing. If you have Cloud for Key Vault, the pricing is different than it is for storage. Every type has its own pricing list and rules."
"While we pay for any additional features, the pricing seems competitive, though I am not involved in the specific cost details."
"Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services."
"We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center."
"This is a worldwide service and depending on the country, there will be different prices."
"Our clients complain about the cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud."
"Azure Defender is definitely pricey, but their competitors cost about the same. For example, a Palo Alto solution is the same price per endpoint, but the ground strikes cost a bit more than Azure Defender. Still, it's pricey for a company like ours. Maybe well-established organizations can afford it, but it might be too costly for a startup."
"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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Microsoft Security Suite solutions are best for your needs.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Educational Organization
6%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise45
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Purview Audit?
Areas for product improvement include enhancing customization options and integrating more comprehensive compliance features.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Purview Audit?
We utilize Microsoft Purview Audit for monitoring security and compliance aspects.
 

Also Known As

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

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Microsoft Purview Audit and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
869,513 professionals have used our research since 2012.