"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"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 dashboard is very good. It gives our clients a lot of information and allows them to have a complete overview of the system. Everything is visible in one glance."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"We can create alerts that trigger if there is any malicious activity happening in the workflow and these alerts can be retrieved using the query language."
"The security alerts and correlated alerts are most valuable. It correlates the logs and gives us correlated alerts, which can be fed into any security information and event management (SIEM) tool. It is an analyzed correlation tool for monitoring security. It gives us alerts when there is any kind of unauthorized access, or when there is any malfunctioning in multifactor authentication (MFA). If our Azure is connected with Azure Security Center, we get to know what types of authentication are happening in our infra."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the SecOps because they have our back and they help us with the reports... It's like having an extension of your team. And then, it grows with you."
"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."
"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."
"Azure Security Center takes a long time to update, compared to the on-premises version of Microsoft Defender."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"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."
"Consistency is the area where the most improvement is needed. For example, there are some areas where the UI is not uniform across the board."
"Most of the time, when we log into the support, we don't get a chance to interact with Microsoft employees directly, except having it go to outsource employees of Microsoft. The initial interaction has not been that great because outsourced companies cannot provide the kind of quality or technical expertise that we look for. We have a technical manager from Microsoft, but they are kind of average unless we make noise and ask them to escalate. We then can get the right people and the right solution, but it definitely takes time."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"They could give a few more insights into security groups and recommendations on how to be more effective. That's getting more into the AWS environment, specifically. I'm not sure if that's Threat Stack's plan or not, but I would like them to help us be efficient about how we're setting up security groups. They could recommend separation of VPCs and the like - really dig into our architecture. I haven't seen a whole lot of that and I think that's something that, right off the bat, could have made us smarter."
"The compliance and governance need improvement."
More Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 2nd in Cloud Workload Security with 24 reviews while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is ranked 10th in Cloud Workload Security with 2 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides good recommendations and makes policy administration easy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform writes "SecOps program for us, as a smaller company, is amazing; they know what to look for". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Amazon GuardDuty, Trend Micro XDR, Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks and Trend Micro Cloud One Workload Security, whereas Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Lacework, Check Point CloudGuard Posture Management and Amazon GuardDuty. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Threat Stack Cloud Security Platform report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Security vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Security 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.
