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

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform comparison

Sponsored
 

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

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
114
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (5th), Cloud and Data Center Security (3rd), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
4th
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), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (5th), Microsoft Security Suite (7th), Compliance Management (5th)
Qualys Enterprise TruRisk P...
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
22nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
9.8
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Cloud and Data Center Security (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 3.6%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 11.1%, down from 12.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform is 0.1%, down from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
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.
VivekSaini - PeerSpot reviewer
Comprehensive vulnerability management improves security assessments
The platform scans the entire environment and IP range, providing comprehensive vulnerability reports along with solutions to address these vulnerabilities. Its features are extensive and it produces proper results, although there may be occasional false positives. It also categorizes risks based on severity, though further evaluation is necessary for our specific environment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"SentinelOne stands out with its responsiveness to feature requests for Singularity Cloud Security."
"They're responsive to feature requests. If I suggest a feature for Prisma, I will need to wait until the next release on their roadmap. Cloud Native Security will add it right away."
"The management console is highly intuitive to comprehend and operate."
"You not only get to know about vulnerabilities and misconfigurations but also some of the actual"
"I rate SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has improved our security poster by at least 100 percent."
"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."
"It alerts us to our vulnerabilities and ensures compliance by marking off a compliance tool checklist."
"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 ten out of ten."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its support for cloud-native services like Kubernetes, containers, managed storage, and databases. Protecting these without Microsoft Defender for Cloud would be extremely challenging. For threat protection specifically, I find the signature-based detection and heuristic detection features very effective."
"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"Qualys offers versatility. It can function both with and without agents, offering flexibility in deployment. Furthermore, it provides comprehensive support for various systems such as Windows Server, Unix servers, and databases, including SQL, Oracle, and others for development."
"Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform is considered a good leader in its field."
 

Cons

"To enhance the notification system's efficiency, resolved issues should be promptly removed from the portal."
"The price is on the higher side. The dashboard can be more detailed."
"Whenever I view the processes and the process aspect, it takes a long time to load."
"The SentinelOne customer support needs improvement, as they are sometimes late in responding, which is critical in a production issue."
"We've found a lot of false positives."
"I want SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security to integrate additional third-party resources. For example, SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is compatible with Azure and AWS, but Azure AD isn't integrated with AWS. If SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security had that ability, it would enrich the data because how users interact with our AWS environment is crucial. All the identity-related features require improvement."
"Implementing single sign-on requires a pre-class account feature, which is currently not available."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"Features like code scanning and pipeline scanning are not included in the solution."
"For improvements, I'd like to see more use cases integrated with Microsoft Sentinel and support for multi-cloud environments beyond just Azure."
"The product must improve its UI."
"Most customer teams need more training on this type of product."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud could be improved by adding capabilities for NetApp files and more PaaS resources from other vendors, not just Microsoft."
"The solution could extend its capabilities to other cloud providers. Right now, if you want to monitor a virtual machine on another cloud, you can do that. However, this cannot be done with other cloud platform services. I hope once that is available then Defender for Cloud will be a unified solution for all cloud platform services."
"The report sometimes inaccurately identifies the corresponding operating system version."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is somewhat high compared to other market tools."
"It is cheap."
"SentinelOne offers excellent pricing and licensing options."
"Its pricing is okay. It is in line with what other providers were providing. It is not cheap. It is not expensive."
"PingSafe is cost-effective for the amount of infrastructure we have. It's reasonable for what they offer compared to our previous solution. It's at least 25 percent to 30 percent less."
"Singularity Cloud Security by SentinelOne is cost-efficient."
"The cost for PingSafe is average when compared to other CSPM tools."
"Its pricing is constant. It has been constant over the previous year, so I am happy with it. However, price distribution can be better explained. That is the only area I am worried about. Otherwise, the pricing is very reasonable."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost."
"The cost is fair. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fee."
"I'm not privy to that information, but I know it's probably close to a million dollars a year."
"Our clients complain about the cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud."
"The licensing is straightforward but can become expensive if you cover everything. You must balance the cost against the importance of what needs covering."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
I don't handle the price part, but it isn't more expensive than Palo Alto Prisma Cloud. It's not cheap, but it is wor...
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
There is scope for more application security posture management features. Additionally, the runtime protection needs ...
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 acros...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
What needs improvement with Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform?
The report sometimes inaccurately identifies the corresponding operating system version. It would be beneficial if th...
What is your primary use case for Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform?
We are using Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform ( /products/qualys-enterprise-trurisk-platform-reviews ) for scanning...
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
Qualys Cloud Platform
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
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.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Qualys Enterprise TruRisk Platform and other solutions. Updated: May 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.