Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management comparison

"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."

"The most valuable features are ransomware protection and access controls. The solution has helped us secure some folders on our systems from unauthorized modifications."

"DSPM is the most valuable feature."

"The solution's coordinated detection and response across devices and identities is impressive because it is complete."

"The most valuable feature is the regulatory compliance aspect, where we utilize predefined initiatives like NIST. Alert management is another useful feature. Alerts are directly integrated with our email or DevOps board for easy viewing, allowing us to identify problem areas efficiently."

"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."

"The most valuable feature for me is the variety of APIs available."

"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a ten."

"The automatic data labeling is compelling, and we are investigating its use."

"Purview's built-in functionality provides immediate access to reports, streamlining the entire process."

"The UI is the most valuable feature."

"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."

"For improvements, I'd like to see more use cases integrated with Microsoft Sentinel and support for multi-cloud environments beyond just Azure."

"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 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."

"I recommend that they extend the scope for legacy infra assets."

"Features like code scanning and pipeline scanning are not included in the solution."

"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."

"The pricing could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."

"Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management can be challenging to implement due to its complexity and dense documentation, making it difficult to get started."

"Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management can be challenging to implement due to its complexity and dense documentation, making it difficult to get started."

"Microsoft's Purview Data Lifecycle Management preview features can be unreliable, hindering their usefulness."

"We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center."

"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."

"There are two different plans. We're using the secure basic plan, but we have used the end security plan as well. There are additional costs, but it gives us more functionalities compared to the basic plan."

"I rate Microsoft Defender a three out of ten for affordability. The price could be a little lower."

"Azure Defender is a bit pricey. The price could be lower."

"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."

"Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost."

"Our clients complain about the cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud."

"The service operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, charging an extra one cent per field of metadata scanned in our data."