Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager comparison

"The integration with Logic Apps allows for automated responses to incidents."

"Most importantly, it's an integrated solution. We not only have Defender for Cloud, but we also have Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Office 365, and Defender for Identity. It's an integrated, holistic solution."

"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."

"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."

"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."

"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is its ability to assess an environment and give us a clear idea of what security components are lacking and which are not."

"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 solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."

"Purview delivers data protection across multi-cloud and multi-platform environments."

"We have more visibility of data and how it is being shared."

"Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager's eDiscovery is essential for organizations using Outlook as their email service."

"We move data between clouds and also from on-premises to the cloud. There is no other mechanism to check if this data is moving according to industry standards for such things as security, bandwidth, and SSL encryption mechanism. We would not be able to see these metrics without Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager."

"The system provides a dashboard showing our compliance status, which aids in managing compliance tasks."

"One of the valuable features of the tool is that it works effectively."

"Microsoft Purview eDiscovery is necessary when using Outlook."

"The best aspect is that it requires little to no time for implementation if I am using all of Microsoft's tools."

"I would like to have the ability to customize executive reporting."

"There are challenges with the licensing policies, which are quite complicated."

"If they had an easier way to display all the vulnerabilities of the machines affected and remediation steps on one screen rather than having to dive deep into each of them, that would be a lot easier."

"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."

"Support needs to be highly responsive, especially in large enterprise environments."

"The product's advanced analytics and reporting features could be improved."

"The product must improve its UI."

"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a six out of 10 due to its lack of necessary features to operate as a standalone solution."

"The speed and accessibility, particularly in the user interface, require significant work."

"The speed and accessibility, particularly in the user interface, require significant work."

"There could be improved automation for handling tasks in bulk or in an automated way."

"Microsoft Purview Compliance Manager is a stable product used by organizations utilizing Outlook as their email client. Despite stability, it needs to be more user-friendly and competitive compared to other eDiscovery tools."

"Microsoft Purview has moved its portal from classic to premium with some display improvements, yet not much in options and functionalities."

"Integrating add-on licenses, which currently offer additional features at a cost, into the base product would be beneficial, especially for a charity organization to avoid incurring extra costs."

"One area for improvement is the technical support for Purview. With all the other solutions from Microsoft we get really good technical support, but with Purview we had a compliance error and we couldn't find the solution. Purview would not point us to the correct solution, it just indicated the error. We had to troubleshoot it and find out what led to this error. We contacted technical support but it took them one week to identify the root cause of the error."

"Integrating add-on licenses, which currently offer additional features at a cost, into the base product would be beneficial, especially for a charity organization to avoid incurring extra costs."

"The cost is fair. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fee."

"We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center."

"The licensing cost per server is $15 per month."

"Pricing is difficult because each license has its own metrics and cost."

"They have a free version, but the license for this one isn't too high. It's free to start with, and you're charged for using it beyond 30 days. Some other pieces of Defender are charged based on usage, so you will be charged more for a high volume of transactions. I believe Defender for Cloud is a daily charge based on Azure's App Service Pricing."

"Its pricing is a little bit high in terms of Azure Security Center, but the good thing is that we don't need to maintain and deploy it. So, while the pricing is high, it is native to Azure which is why we prefer using this tool."

"We only use the free tier, so we haven't faced any pricing, setup costs, or licensing challenges."

"It is bundled with our enterprise subscription, which makes it easy to go for it. It is available by default, and there is no extra cost for using the standard features."

"The pricing and licensing are moderate because we have other licenses for Microsoft services. The pricing is in line with that."