We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Trend Micro Cloud One 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 UEBA while Trend Micro Cloud One provides excellent vulnerability protection, login inspection, and container security. Microsoft Defender needs better consistency, customization, integration, and collaboration, as well as wider resource coverage and more intuitive features. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One needs improvements in pricing, automation, setup, licensing, and marketing documentation.
Service and Support: Users have had varying experiences with Microsoft Defender for Cloud's customer service, with some encountering delays and challenges in accessing appropriate support. Conversely, Trend Micro Cloud One is largely praised for their support team's expertise and helpfulness.
Ease of Deployment: Microsoft Defender for Cloud has a simple and quick setup process with minimal maintenance, while Trend Micro Cloud One's setup process is mixed and may require a team for optimal performance.
Pricing: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is seen as cost-effective compared to other products, while Trend Micro Cloud One is in the middle range. Trend Micro Cloud One also has additional services that can be paid for separately, while Microsoft Defender for Cloud is bundled with other Microsoft solutions.
ROI: Microsoft Defender for Cloud is a cost-effective choice that improves security and saves time. On the other hand, Trend Micro Cloud One is flexible, but the ROI is not as clear-cut.
Comparison Results: Users prefer Microsoft Defender for Cloud over Trend Micro Cloud One due to its comprehensive features, ease of use, and cost-effectiveness. Microsoft Defender for Cloud offers regulatory compliance, ransomware protection, access controls, incident alerts, and collaborative services. Trend Micro Cloud One offers useful features but is criticized for its high pricing, lack of automation, and complex initial setup.
"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."
"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."
"The security baseline and vulnerability assessments is the valuable feature."
"The first thing that stood out was the ease of installation and the quick value we got out of the solution."
"The product supports out-of-the-box reporting with context about the asset and allows us to perform complex custom queries on UI."
"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."
"Our most important features are those around entitlement, external exposure, vulnerabilities, and container security."
"With Wiz, we get timely alerts for leaked data or any vulnerabilities already existing in our environment."
"When you have commissioned Defender, you have these things visible already on your dashboard. This gives the efficiency to the people to do their actual work rather than bothering about the email, sorting out the email, or looking at it through an ITSM solution, whey they have to look at the description and use cases. Efficiency increases with this optimized, ready-made solution since you don't need to invest in something externally. You can start using the dashboard and auditing capability provided from day one. Thus, you have fewer costs with a more optimized, easier-to-use solution, providing operational efficiency for your team."
"The product has given us more insight into potential avenues for attack paths."
"Defender lets you orchestrate the roll-out from a single pane. Using the Azure portal, you can roll it out over all the servers covered by the entire subscription."
"Technical support is helpful."
"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."
"Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."
"It has seamless integration with any of the services I mentioned, on Azure, such as IaaS platforms, virtual machines, applications, or databases, because it's an in-house product from Microsoft within the Azure ecosystem."
"I really like Trend Vision One - Cloud Security's dashboard."
"The most valuable features are intrusion prevention and anti-malware capabilities."
"The the most valuable feature is the scanning engine. It does not impact server performance. It's very lightweight."
"Virtual patching is one of the key features, which is executed with their IPS."
"The storage and computing features are valuable."
"The most valuable part of Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is its dashboard, as it's simple. It's easy to manage, and you can better control the solution."
"I like the conformity and workload security modules. Workload security is all about intrusion detection and prevention. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security has behavioral rules that are auto-populated based on organizational structure. That's one aspect that we liked most."
"The product helps us understand our environment better."
"The only thing that needs to be improved is the number of scans per day."
"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."
"The remediation workflow within the Wiz could be improved."
"One significant issue is that the searches are case-sensitive, so finding a misconfigured resource can become very challenging."
"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."
"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 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."
"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."
"For Kubernetes, I was using Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS). To see that whatever is getting deployed into AKS goes through the correct checks and balances in terms of affinities and other similar aspects and follows all the policies, we had to use a product called Stackrox. At a granular level, the built-in policies were good for Kubernetes, but to protect our containers from a coding point of view, we had to use a few other products. For example, from a programming point of view, we were using Checkmarx for static code analysis. For CIS compliance, there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, we had to use other plugins to see that the CIS benchmarks are compliant. There are CIS benchmarks for Kubernetes on AWS and GCP, but there are no CIS benchmarks for AKS. So, Azure Security Center fell short from the regulatory compliance point of view, and we had to use one more product. We ended up with two different dashboards. We had Azure Security Center, and we had Stackrox that had its own dashboard. The operations team and the security team had to look at two dashboards, and they couldn't get an integrated piece. That's a drawback of Azure Security Center. Azure Security Center should provide APIs so that we can integrate its dashboard within other enterprise dashboards, such as the PowerBI dashboard. We couldn't get through these aspects, and we ended up giving Reader security permission to too many people, which was okay to some extent, but when we had to administer the users for the Stackrox portal and Azure Security Center, it became painful."
"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."
"One of the main challenges that we have been facing with Azure Security Center is the cost. The costs are really a complex calculation, e.g., to calculate the monthly costs. Azure is calculating on an hourly basis for use of the resource. Because of this, we found it really complex to promote what will be our costs for the next couple of months. I think if Azure could reduce the complex calculation and come up with straightforward cost mapping that would be very useful from a product point of view."
"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."
"Another thing that could be improved was that they could recommend processes on how to react to alerts, or recommend best practices based on how other organizations do things if they receive an alert about XYZ."
"The solution is quite complex. A lot of the different policies that actually get applied don't pertain to every client. If you need to have something open for a client application to work, then you get dinged for having a port open or having an older version of TLS available."
"Defender is occasionally unreliable. It isn't 100% efficient in terms of antivirus detection, but it isn't an issue most of the time. It's also somewhat difficult to train new security analysts to use Defender."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security could improve connections with different types of authentication and user groups concerning cloud services."
"The initial setup can be complex for the inexperienced."
"Documentation on cloud architecture and job architecture would be helpful."
"There are also some loopholes because it's a new product that they have recently migrated to the cloud. We do see some issues with the policies we have assigned when it comes to a particular account. There are some issues with system support, such as a particular server kernel version that is not supported."
"The product could use a little bit of automation."
"Trend Vision One - Cloud Security seems to have a preference for AWS Cloud over Azure and would be improved by focusing equally on both."
"The initial setup is easy for someone who operates container platforms on a daily basis. However, it could be difficult for those coming purely from informational security or another field of an IT."
"The dashboard should be a bit more intuitive."
More Trend Vision One - Cloud Security Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Container Security with 46 reviews while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is ranked 8th in Container Security with 17 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is rated 8.6. 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 Trend Vision One - Cloud Security writes "We can quickly deploy cloud conformity, provides good visibility, and control". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and Orca Security, whereas Trend Vision One - Cloud Security is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Check Point Harmony Email & Collaboration, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, AWS Security Hub and Orca Security. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trend Vision One - Cloud Security report.
See our list of best Container Security vendors, best Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) vendors, and best Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) 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.