We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Microsoft Defender for Cloud 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 offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. AWS Security Hub is highly valued for its integration capabilities, real-time alert capabilities, and comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. Microsoft Defender for Cloud needs work in consistency, customization, integration, collaboration, and protection. Meanwhile, AWS Security Hub requires more integration options, a better user interface, self-sufficiency, multi-cloud compatibility, and faster updates and integration.
Service and Support: Some users have had positive experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, while others have encountered issues with outsourced support, slow response times, and difficulty reaching the appropriate level of support. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been characterized as prompt and satisfactory by clients.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and AWS Security Hub have fairly easy and straightforward initial setup processes. Microsoft Defender for Cloud may require some prior knowledge, but it generally takes less than 24 hours to deploy. Maintenance for both solutions is minimal, with AWS Security Hub requiring little to no maintenance after deployment. However, policies still need to be configured for AWS Security Hub during setup.
Pricing: M Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing depends on the license and metrics used, while AWS Security Hub's pricing is considered reasonable. Reviewers generally find Microsoft Defender for Cloud's pricing to be fair and cost-effective, but note that it may not be suitable for small businesses due to cost. AWS Security Hub's pricing is viewed as satisfactory, although there is some ambiguity for those not part of the central team.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is user-friendly and cost-effective, while AWS Security Hub has been beneficial for users.
Comparison Results: According to user feedback, Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option when compared to AWS Security Hub. It offers more comprehensive features, such as regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, and UEBA features that are important for cloud environments. Although AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, users suggest it could benefit from more integration options with open-source cloud security solutions and improvements to the user interface.
"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 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."
"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."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"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."
"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 automation roles are essential because we ultimately want to do less work and automate more. The dashboards are easy to read and visually pleasing. You can understand things quickly, which makes it easy for our other teams. The network and infrastructure teams don't know as much about security as we do, so it helps to have a tool that's accessible and nice to look at."
"Finding out if your infrastructure is secure is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easy to manage...It is a scalable solution."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"AWS Security Hub provides comprehensive alerts about potential compliance issues with CIS standards. The integration with third-party tools is another excellent feature. All our workloads are on AWS."
"I find all of the features to be highly valuable."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"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."
"The first valuable feature was the fact that it gave us a list of everything that users were surfing on the web. Having the list, we could make decisions about those sites."
"Defender is a robust platform for dealing with many kinds of threats. We're protected from various threats, like viruses. Attacks can be easily minimized with this solution defending our infrastructure."
"The vulnerability reporting is helpful. When we initially deployed Defender, it reported many more threats than we currently see. It gave us insight into areas we had not previously considered, so we knew where we needed to act."
"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."
"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 remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"The solution's container security could be improved."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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."
"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."
"Given the level of visibility into all the cloud environments Wiz provides, it would be nice if they could integrate some kind of mechanism to better manage tenants on multiple platforms. For example, let's say that some servers don't have an application they need, such as an antivirus. Wiz could include an API or something to push those applications out to the servers. It would be great if you could remedy these issues directly from the Wiz platform."
"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."
"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."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"It's not user-friendly. Too much going on, too many unnecessary findings, not very visual. You can't do much compared to other similar tools that are cheaper and better."
"Although AWS Security Hub does a periodic scan of your overall infrastructure, it doesn't do it in real time."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"The solution lacks self-sufficiency."
"The support must be quicker."
"The telemetry doesn't always go into the control center. When you have multiple instances running in AWS, you need a control tower to take feeds from Security Hub and analyze your results. Sometimes exemptions aren't passed between the control tower and Security Hub. The configuration gets mixed up or you don't get the desired results."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"The documentation could be much clearer."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 46 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Cloud writes "Provides multi-cloud capability, is plug-and-play, and improves our security posture". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Google Chronicle Suite, Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Wazuh. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.
