We performed a comparison between Aqua Security Platform and Microsoft Defender for Cloud based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Aqua Security Platform is generally preferred over Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Users value Aqua Security's ability to identify security threats in images, detect malware, and scan containers. Additionally, they praise the user-friendly interface, on-demand patching, and sandboxing. Although Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers automation and threat analysis capabilities, the Aqua Security Platform stands out due to its extensive features and excellent customer support.
"With PingSafe, it's easy to onboard new accounts."
"Cloud Native Security has helped us with our risk posture and securing our agenda. It has been tremendous in terms of supporting growth."
"PingSafe can integrate all your cloud accounts and resources you create in the AWS account, We have set it up to scan the AWS transfer services, EC2, security groups, and GitHub."
"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's integration is smooth. They are highly customer-oriented, and the integration went well for us."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"PingSafe offers three key features: vulnerability management notifications, cloud configuration assistance, and security scanning."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"The CSPM product is great at securing our cloud accounts and I really like the runtime protection for containers and functions too."
"The most valuable features are that it's easy to use and manage."
"The most valuable feature is the security."
"Valuable features include the ability to connect it to our Docker Hub where our images are stored, good integration with Slack, and the connection to the CV, to easily see which CVs are on each image."
"Aqua Security allowed us to gain visibility into the vulnerabilities that were present in the container images, that were being rolled out, the amount of risk that we were introducing to the platform, and provided us a look into the container environment by introducing access control mechanisms. In addition, when it came to runtime-level policies, we could restrict container access to resources in our environment, such as network-level or other application-level access."
"Customers find it invaluable to have the ability to check for vulnerabilities in an image before deployment, similar to a sandbox environment."
"Aqua Security helps us to check the vulnerability of image assurance and check for malware."
"The solution was very user-friendly."
"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 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 is very intuitive when it comes to policy administration, alerts and notifications, and ease of setting up roles at different hierarchies. It has also been good in terms of the network technology maps. It provides a good overview, but it also depends on the complexity of your network."
"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."
"Good compliance policies."
"One important security feature is the incident alerts. Now, with all these cyberattacks, there are a lot of incident alerts that get triggered. It is very difficult to keep monitoring everything automatically, instead our organization is utilizing the automated use case that we get from Microsoft. That has helped bring down the manual work for a lot of things."
"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 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."
"Sometimes the Storyline ID is a bit wacky."
"The resolution suggestions could be better, and the compliance features could be more customizable for Indian regulations. Overall, the compliance aspects are good. It gives us a comprehensive list, and its feedback is enough to bring us into compliance with regulations, but it doesn't give us the specific objects."
"We are getting reports only in a predefined form. I would like to have customized reports so that I can see how many issues are open or closed today or in two weeks."
"PingSafe can be improved by developing a comprehensive set of features that allow for automated workflows."
"Their search feature could be better."
"It took us a while to configure the software to work well in this type of environment, as the support documents were not always clear."
"The categorization of the results from the vulnerability assessment could be improved."
"They need more experienced support personnel."
"Aqua Security could provide more open documentation so that their learning resources can be more easily accessed and searched through online. Right now, a lot of the documentation is closed and not available to the public."
"We would like to see an improvement in the overview visibility that this solution offers."
"They want to release improvements to their product to work with other servers because now there are more focused on the Kubernetes environment. They need to improve the normal servers. I would like to have more options."
"Aqua Security lacks a lot in reporting."
"There's room for improvement, particularly in management capabilities as it may not be comprehensive enough for all customers, and it has been lacking in the realm of cloud security posture management."
"The solution could improve user-friendliness."
"Aqua Security could improve the forwarding of logging into Splunk and into other tools, it should be easier."
"Since we are working from home, we would like to have the proper training for Aqua."
"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."
"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"Azure is a complex solution. You have so many moving parts."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"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."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"We would like to have better transparency as to how the security score is calculated because as it is now, it is difficult to understand."
More SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Aqua Cloud Security Platform is ranked 11th in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 16 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews. Aqua Cloud Security Platform is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Aqua Cloud Security Platform writes "Reliable with good container scanning and a straightforward setup". 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". Aqua Cloud Security Platform is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Snyk, Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security for Kubernetes and Tenable.io Container Security, whereas 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. See our Aqua Cloud Security Platform vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, best Container Security vendors, and best Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) 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.