We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Ease of Deployment: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks' initial setup was straightforward and aided by helpful engineers and clear instructions. Deployment time differed but was uncomplicated. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's setup is simple and straightforward, though policies must be set up. It necessitates minimal upkeep.
Features: Prisma Cloud provides a management console, continuous compliance monitoring, auto-remediation, and identity-based micro-segmentation. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub is commended for its integration capabilities, real-time alerts, and compliance monitoring. Prisma Cloud could benefit from more personalized dashboard options, enhanced automation capabilities, and better integration with ticketing systems. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub might benefit from greater integration possibilities with open-source solutions and upgrades to its user interface and dashboards.
Pricing: Prisma Cloud is perceived as having a complex credit-based pricing system, leading to a general perception of being expensive. However, it provides good value for securing multi-cloud environments. In contrast, AWS Security Hub is considered to have reasonable pricing, but there is some uncertainty surrounding it for those outside of the central team.
Service and Support: Prisma Cloud's customer service has been a bit inconsistent, with some customers appreciating the technical assistance and account managers, while others have encountered slow response times and unhelpful solutions. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub's technical support has been commended by contented customers for being prompt and efficient.
ROI: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks offers benefits such as risk transparency, enhanced compliance and security, and quicker issue resolution, resulting in improved productivity and cost savings. Although the exact ROI is hard to quantify, it reduces risks and enhances resource utilization. On the other hand, AWS Security Hub has been well-received with a positive outcome.
Comparison Results: Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is the better option when compared to AWS Security Hub. Its features are more comprehensive and effective in protecting the entire cloud-native stack, including cloud compliance monitoring and alerting, network security, and micro-segmentation. While AWS Security Hub is praised for its integration capabilities, it falls short in terms of comprehensive features and auto-remediation capabilities.
"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."
"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."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"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 solution is very user-friendly."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"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 most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"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."
"Finding out if your infrastructure is secure is a valuable feature."
"I like that AWS Security Hub currently has several good features, around four or five. The technical support for AWS Security Hub is also responsive."
"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 has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"I really like the seamless integration with the AWS account structure. It can even be made mandatory as part of the landing zone. These are great features. And there's a single pane of glass for the entire account."
"Visibility is a key feature. Integration with other technologies across the board, whether they are Palo Alto technologies, Windows technologies, or cloud technologies, is probably the biggest thing."
"The support is excellent."
"The container and serverless security is most valuable. It is quite a new technology for this region. Even though containers have been there for a long time, the adoption of containers is very minimal in this region. When it comes to using Kubernetes containers in a complex architecture, there is a lack of security in the market. People aren't aware of the security controls or the process for governance. Container security provided by Prisma Cloud is quite good at filling that gap."
"Prisma Cloud has enabled us to take a very strong preventive approach to cloud security. One of the hardest things with cloud is getting visibility into workloads. With Prisma Cloud, you can go in and get that visibility, then set up policies to alert on risky behavior, e.g., if there are security groups or firewall ports open up. So, it is very helpful in preventing configuration errors in the cloud by having visibility. If there are issues, then you can find them and fix them."
"Configuration monitoring and alerting is the most valuable feature; it happens at the cloud's speed, allowing our development team to respond quickly. If a configuration goes against our security best practices, we're alerted promptly and can act to resolve the issue. As cloud security staff, we're not staring at the cloud all the time, and we want to let the developers do their jobs so that our company is protected and work is proceeding within our security controls."
"Prisma Cloud's monitoring features such as the compute compliance dashboard and the vulnerability dashboard, where we can get a clear visualization of their docker, have also been valuable. We can get layer-by-layer information that helps us see exactly where it's noncompliant. They update the dashboards quite frequently."
"The most valuable features are vulnerability monitoring, serverless access, container runtime features, and Defender."
"We were pleased with Prisma's custom and built-in reports. We could go into the dashboard and see all these notifications telling us which subscriptions didn't have TLS 1.2 enabled. The security controls were the most valuable features."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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 solution's container security 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."
"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."
"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 remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"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."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"The support must be quicker."
"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."
"From an improvement perspective, there is a need to add more compliance since, right now, AWS Security Hub only provides four to five compliances to control the tool."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"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."
"They should improve the user experience."
"I would like to see the inclusion of automated counter-attack, although this is probably illegal."
"They can improve the integrations into the SDLC lifecycle."
"The pricing for the solution needs improvement."
"I have some challenges customizing and personalizing some of the capabilities in the CSPM in terms of new policies and services. We have to reconfigure and rebuild the CSPM."
"It would be ideal if they could somehow reduce the deployment time."
"The automation capabilities are growing each day, but the problem is that the updates are not that frequent. There are some services on Amazon that have come out with updates, and Azure is also getting up to date. But Prisma takes some time to follow. There's a time gap that Prisma inherits from these clouds. I understand why it takes some time, but that time should be reduced."
"One definite area for improvement is the auto-remediation or the CWP area. The second one is the RQL language. It is still not very flexible and does not cover a lot of use cases. The RQL language could be dramatically improved to add more options."
More Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Security Hub is ranked 13th in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 16 reviews while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 1st in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) with 83 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4. 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 Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks writes "The dashboard is very user-friendly and can be used to generate custom RQL based on user requirements". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Google Chronicle Suite, Oracle Security Monitoring and Analytics Cloud Service and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Aqua Cloud Security Platform, CrowdStrike Falcon Cloud Security, AWS GuardDuty and Snyk. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks 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.