We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc 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 access controls, while also providing real-time assessment, incident alerts, and UEBA features. On the other hand, Tenable.sc's strengths lie in accuracy in vulnerability detection, prioritization, automation, and risk-based approach. In terms of room for improvement, some users have cited issues with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's reporting capabilities and ease of use. On the other hand, Tenable.sc users have mentioned a need for more user-friendly interfaces and better integration with other security tools.
Service and Support: Some Microsoft Defender users faced challenges with slow response times and difficulty reaching the appropriate support level. Tenable.sc's support is generally positive, with some users finding it prompt and helpful, but others reporting delays and a lack of helpful information.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for both Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc is reportedly easy, with Microsoft's requiring less maintenance. However, the on-prem version of Tenable.sc can take longer to deploy and needs integration with other solutions.
Pricing: The cost of Microsoft Defender for Cloud depends on the license and metrics, but is often seen as reasonable. Tenable.sc's pricing is based on the number of addresses to be scanned and can include extra costs for advanced support, leading to mixed opinions on its affordability.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Tenable.sc are two different tools that offer unique benefits. Microsoft Defender for Cloud has improved security measures and saved time, while Tenable.sc is useful for reducing the workload and has impressive reporting features.
Comparison Results: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the preferred option over Tenable.sc due to its comprehensive cloud environment features, including regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, and access controls. Tenable.sc has accurate vulnerability detection and a user-friendly interface, but it lacks some critical cloud environment features and has mixed reviews on customer support and pricing.
"The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"The security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it."
"Technical support is helpful."
"The technical support is very good."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"Very customizable with a lot of templates."
"Support is knowledgeable."
"The solution is very intuitive and the dashboards are simple to use."
"Compliance and vulnerability scans are most valuable. Compliance scan helps in validating how our teams are complying, and vulnerability scan helps in future-proofing. Its vulnerability detection is accurate."
"The most valuable features in Tenable SC are scanning and analysis."
"Their overall cost of service is pretty good."
"What is useful to me is being able to fulfill very customized scanning policies. In the clinical environment, because of vendor control, we can't perform credential-vulnerability scanning. And network scans, which I've done before, can cause a lot of impact. Being able to create very customized policies to be able to routinely scan and audit our clinical networks, while simultaneously not causing impact, is important to us."
"The feature we've liked most recently was being able to take the YARA rules from FireEye and put them into Tenable's scan for the most recent SolarWinds exploit. That was really useful."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"I would like to see better automation when it comes to pushing out security features to the recommendations, and better documentation on the step-by-step procedures for enabling certain features."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"There is no perfect product in the world and there are always features that can be added."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Security can always be improved."
"The solution is expensive."
"In terms of configuration, there is some level of flexibility that we are not able to achieve."
"The solution is expensive."
"Current web page needs improvement, slows down processes."
"The web application scanning area can be improved."
"A good plugin editor would be a good additional option for the Security Center."
"The reporting side can be improved. The dashboards are nice, but exporting things out for reports for management was a little tough."
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 7th in Vulnerability Management with 46 reviews while Tenable Security Center is ranked 1st in Vulnerability Management with 48 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Tenable Security Center is rated 8.2. 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 Tenable Security Center writes "A security solution for vulnerability assessment with automated scans". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Tenable Security Center is most compared with Tenable Vulnerability Management, Qualys VMDR, Tenable Nessus, Rapid7 InsightVM and XM Cyber. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Tenable Security Center report.
See our list of best Vulnerability Management vendors and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) vendors.
We monitor all Vulnerability Management 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.
