We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Trend Micro Cloud One based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Microsoft Defender for Cloud focuses on regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and UEBA while Trend Micro Cloud One provides excellent vulnerability protection, login inspection, and container security. Microsoft Defender needs better consistency, customization, integration, and collaboration, as well as wider resource coverage and more intuitive features. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One needs improvements in pricing, automation, setup, licensing, and marketing documentation.
Service and Support: Users have had varying experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, with some encountering delays and challenges in accessing appropriate support. Conversely, Trend Micro Cloud One is largely praised for their support team's expertise and helpfulness.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud has a simple and quick setup process with minimal maintenance, while Trend Micro Cloud One's setup process is mixed and may require a team for optimal performance.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is seen as cost-effective compared to other products, while Trend Micro Cloud One is in the middle range. Trend Micro Cloud One also has additional services that can be paid for separately, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is bundled with other Microsoft solutions.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a cost-effective choice that improves security and saves time. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One is flexible, but the ROI is not as clear-cut.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trend Micro Cloud One due to its comprehensive features, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, incident alerts, and collaborative services. Trend Micro Cloud One offers useful features but is criticized for its high pricing, lack of automation, and complex initial setup.
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"I like Wiz's reporting, and it's easy to do queries. For example, it's pretty simple to find out how many servers we have and the applications installed on each. I like Wiz's security graph because you can use it to see the whole organization even if you have multiple accounts."
"Out of all the features, the one item that has been most valuable is the fact that Wiz puts into context all the pieces that create an issue, and applies a particular risk evaluation that helps us prioritize when we need to address a misconfiguration, vulnerability, or any issue that would put our environment into risk."
"The CSPM module has been the most effective. It was easy to deploy and covered all our accounts through APIs, requiring no agents. Wiz provides instant visibility into high-level risks that we need to address."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The vulnerability management modules and the discovery and inventory are the most valuable features. Before using Wiz, it was a very manual process for both. After implementing it, we're able to get all of the analytics into a single platform that gives us visibility across all the systems in our cloud. We're able to correspond and understand what the vulnerability landscape looks like a lot faster."
"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 solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."
"Good compliance policies."
"Everything is built into Azure, and if we go for cross-cloud development with Azure Arc, we can use most of the features. While it's possible to deploy and convert third-party applications, it is difficult to maintain, whereas Azure deployments to the cloud are always easier. Also, Microsoft is a big company, so they always provide enough support, and we trust the Microsoft brand."
"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 main feature is the security posture assessment through the security score. I find that to be very helpful because it gives us guidance on what needs to be secured and recommendations on how to secure the workloads that have been onboarded."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"Detection response and cloud conformity are valuable features."
"The perfect package for all security platforms, providing more than any other endpoint solution."
"The security is good."
"Virtual patching is one of the key features, which is executed with their IPS."
"The most valuable part of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is its dashboard, as it's simple. It's easy to manage, and you can better control the solution."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's best features are security analysis, remote access security, and driver security."
"Vision One is versatile and can be integrated with many SIEMs. You're not limited to only one SIEM, such as Microsoft Sentinel. The API integrations are seamless, and we have all the documentation needed to integrate Vision One via API."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security does not utilize a lot of resources which allows our users to keep working even during a scan."
"The only small pain point has been around some of the logging integrations. Some of the complexities of the script integrations aren't supported with some of the more automated infrastructure components. So, it's not as universal. For example, they have great support for cloud formation and other services, but if you're using another type of management utility or governance language for your infrastructure-as-code automation components, it becomes a little bit trickier to navigate that."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"Wiz's reporting capabilities could be refined a bit. They are making headway on that, but more executive-style dashboards would be nice. They just implemented a community aspect where you can share documents and feedback. This was something users had been requesting for a while. They are listening to customer feedback and making changes."
"The reporting isn't that great. They have executive summaries, but it's only a compliance report that maps all current issues to specific controls. Whether you look at one subscription or project, regardless of the size, you will get a multipage report on how the issues in that account map to that control. Our CSO isn't going to read through that. He won't filter that out or show that to his leadership and say, "Here's what we're doing." It isn't a helpful report. They're working on it, but it's a poor executive summary."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"We're looking at some of the data compliance stuff that they've got Jon offer. I know they're looking at container security, which we gonna be looking at next."
"We would like to see improvements to executive-level reporting and data reporting in general, which we understand is being rolled out to the platform."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."
"The product must improve its UI."
"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."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"I would suggest building a single product that addresses endpoint server protection, attack surface, and everything else in one solution. That is the main disadvantage with the product. If we are incorporating some features, we end up in a situation where this solution is for the server, and that one is for the client, or this is for identity, and that is for our application. They're not bundling it. Commercially, we can charge for different licenses, but on the implementation side, it's tough to help our end-customer understand which product they're getting."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security should address threats automatically without having user input."
"The workbook insights generate a massive list, making it inconvenient to review."
"They should provide a way for users to see violations for specific compliance."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security seems to have a preference for AWS Cloud over Azure and would be improved by focusing equally on both."
"The firewall configuration should have been automated based on the understanding of the application, utilities, and protocols."
"One area for improvement in Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is marketing; in particular, Trend Vision should update the marketing documentation. The information needs to be more comprehensive."
"The dashboard should be a bit more intuitive."
"Securing S3 using Trend Vision One - Cloud Security can cost too much. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security has a tool that requires lots of privileges. From my understanding, it's only for static application testing, so they need to add dynamic application testing, and there should be more collaboration with the application testing tools on the market. We have not used this product, and I don't know if they plan to decommission it or something. They should focus on application security because this tool's unique feature is multi-cloud support. However, they should improve integration with tools for these kinds of use cases, especially application security and dynamic scanning. For example, I would like it to support Dell SecureOps. I'd also like to see some enhancements to API gateway security."
More Trend Vision One - Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is ranked 7th in Container Security with 17 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security writes "We can quickly deploy cloud conformity, provides good visibility, and control". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Orca Security, whereas Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Aqua Cloud Security Platform and AWS Security Hub. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Container 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.
