We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Snyk based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Container Security solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"The visibility is the best part of the solution."
"We use the infrastructure as code scanning, which is good."
"We've seen a reduction in resources devoted to vulnerability monitoring. Before PingSafe we spent a lot of time monitoring and fixing these issues. PingSafe enabled us to divert more resources to the production environment."
"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"It is very straightforward. It is not complicated. For the information that it provides, it does a pretty good job."
"I did a lot of research before signing up and doing the demo. They have a good reputation as far as catching threats early on."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is very easy to deploy."
"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 most valuable features of this solution are the vulnerability assessments and the glossary of compliance."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"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."
"This is a platform as a service provided by Azure. We don't need to install or maintain Azure Security Center. It is a ready-made service available in Azure. This is one of the main things that we like. If you look at similar tools, we have to install, maintain, and update services. Whereas, Azure Security Center manages what we are using. This is a good feature that has helped us a lot."
"The most valuable feature of Snyk is the software composition analysis."
"The solution has great features and is quite stable."
"The solution's vulnerability database, in terms of comprehensiveness and accuracy, is very high-level. As far as I know, it's the best among their competitors."
"From the software composition analysis perspective, it first makes sure that we understand what is happening from a third-party perspective for the particular product that we use. This is very difficult when you are building software and incorporating dependencies from other libraries, because those dependencies have dependencies and that chain of dependencies can go pretty deep. There could be a vulnerability in something that is seven layers deep, and it would be very difficult to understand that is even affecting us. Therefore, Snyk provides fantastic visibility to know, "Yes, we have a problem. Here is where it ultimately comes from." It may not be with what we're incorporating, but something much deeper than that."
"The solution's Open Source feature gives us notifications and suggestions regarding how to address vulnerabilities."
"Static code analysis is one of the best features of the solution."
"The most valuable features are their GitLab and JIRA integrations. The GitLab integration lets us pull projects in pretty easily, so that it's pretty minimal for developers to get it set up. Using the JIRA integration, it's also pretty easy to get the information that is generated, as a result of that GitLab integration, back to our teams in a non-intrusive way and in a workflow that we are already using."
"The CLI feature is quite useful because it gives us a lot of flexibility in what we want to do. If you use the UI, all the information is there and you can see what Snyk is showing you, but there is nothing else that you can change. However, when you use the CLI, then you can use commands and can get the output or response back from Snyk. You can also take advantage of that output in a different way. For the same reason, we have been using the CLI for the hard gate in the pipeline: Obtain a particular CDSS score for vulnerability. Based on that information, we can then decide if we want to block or allow the build. We have more flexibility if we use the CLI."
"The main area for improvement I want to see is for the platform to become less resource-intensive. Right now, it can slow down processes on the machine, and it would be a massive improvement if it were more lightweight than it currently is."
"The cost has the potential for improvement."
"We wanted it to provide us with something like Claroty Hub in AWS for lateral movement. For example, if an EC2 instance or a virtual machine is compromised in a public subnet based on a particular vulnerability, such as Log4j, we want it to not be able to reach some of our databases. This kind of feature is not supported in PingSafe."
"While it is good, I think the solution's console could be improved."
"There is no break-glass account feature. They should implement this as soon as possible because we can't implement SSO without a break-glass feature."
"PingSafe can improve by eliminating 100 percent of the false positives."
"I would like additional integrations."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"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."
"The product must improve its UI."
"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."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"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."
"You cannot create custom use cases."
"The solution's reporting and storage could be improved."
"We have to integrate with their database, which means we need to send our entire code to them to scan, and they send us the report. A company working in the financial domain usually won't like to share its code or any information outside its network with any third-party provider."
"It would be helpful if we get a recommendation while doing the scan about the necessary things we need to implement after identifying the vulnerabilities."
"Could include other types of security scanning and statistical analysis"
"There are some new features that we would like to see added, e.g., more visibility into library usage for the code. Something along the lines where it's doing the identification of where vulnerabilities are used, etc. This would cause them to stand out in the market as a much different platform."
"We use Bamboo for CI.CD, and we had problems integrating Snyk with it. Ultimately, we got the two solutions to work together, but it was difficult."
"The reporting mechanism of Snyk could improve. The reporting mechanism is available only on the higher level of license. Adjusting the policy of the current setup of recording this report is something that can improve. For instance, if you have a certain license, you receive a rating, and the rating of this license remains the same for any use case. No matter if you are using it internally or using it externally, you cannot make the adjustment to your use case. It will always alert as a risky license. The areas of licenses in the reporting and adjustments can be improve"
"Generating reports and visibility through reports are definitely things they can do better."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while Snyk is ranked 5th in Container Security with 41 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Snyk 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 Snyk writes "Performs software composition analysis (SCA) similar to other expensive tools". 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 Snyk is most compared with SonarQube, Black Duck, GitHub Advanced Security, Fortify Static Code Analyzer and Veracode. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Snyk report.
See our list of best Container Security 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.
