Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs SUSE NeuVector comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 5, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Container Security
3rd
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Container Security
4th
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (4th), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (4th), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (3rd), Microsoft Security Suite (4th), Compliance Management (3rd)
SUSE NeuVector
Ranking in Container Security
23rd
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Container Security category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 2.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 7.2%, down from 8.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SUSE NeuVector is 2.7%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Container Security
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.
Danie Joubert - PeerSpot reviewer
Good value for money; great for policy management
Our model of deployment for this solution is on-premises. For people looking into this solution and trying to use it for the first time, I'd say make your life easier by using the SUSE product as well on top of your community scale stack. That makes your integration points a lot easier and smoother. I would also say during your initial setup, make sure that your clusters are already in terms of the capabilities with the version required. I would rate this solution an eight, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. The reason for this rating is that what they offer is solid, but they could expand their service and add more features just to make more things integrated into an enterprise itself.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Singularity Cloud Security's most valuable features are its ease of scalability and comprehensive security measures."
"Cloud Native Security offers a valuable tool called an offensive search engine."
"When creating cloud infrastructure, Cloud Native Security evaluates the cloud security parameters and how they will impact the organization's risk. It lets us know whether our security parameter conforms to international industry standards. It alerts us about anything that increases our risk, so we can address those vulnerabilities and prevent attacks."
"All the features we use are equal and get the job done."
"Cloud Native Security helps us discover vulnerabilities in a cloud environment like open ports that allow people to attack our environment. If someone unintentionally opens a port, we are exposed. Cloud Native Security alerts us so we can remediate the problem. We can also automate it so that Cloud Native Security will fix it."
"The dashboard is intuitive in terms of design and functionality. Additionally, it gives me an email for all the findings that are open."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to gain deep visibility into the workloads inside containers."
"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 most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"It's quite a good product. It helps to understand the infections and issues you are facing."
"The most valuable feature is the regulatory compliance aspect, where we utilize predefined initiatives like NIST. Alert management is another useful feature. Alerts are directly integrated with our email or DevOps board for easy viewing, allowing us to identify problem areas efficiently."
"I have not experienced any difficulties or issues with the stability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud."
"My favorite part of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is the compliance features. Defender covers a wide range of workloads, on par with competing products on the market."
"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."
"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."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud helps in improving our overall security posture. We have a nice overview of what is missing where and what can be improved."
"The tool's deployment is simple. Also, I am impressed with its risk capabilities."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
"The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security."
"The UI has a lot of features."
"The features of image scanning and anti-malware are really valuable."
"The initial setup is quite good, it's straightforward."
"When it comes to the price, we got a really good deal from the vendor instantly."
"The solution includes many features, not only for container and client security but also for scanning nodes, networks, and vulnerabilities."
 

Cons

"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."
"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"The area of improvement is the cost, which is high compared to other traditional endpoint protections."
"The SentinelOne customer support needs improvement, as they are sometimes late in responding, which is critical in a production issue."
"The cloud-based operations might pose challenges in areas with limited or unavailable internet connectivity. Desktop features might be useful for smaller organizations with less complex security needs."
"here is a bit of a learning curve. However, you only need two to three days to identify options and get accustomed."
"Scanning capabilities should be added for the dark web."
"Bugs need to be disclosed quickly."
"The pricing could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."
"Microsoft Graph needs improvement."
"Microsoft Defender could be more centralized. For example, I still need to go to another console to do policy management."
"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."
"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."
"The solution could improve by being more intuitive and easier to use requiring less technical knowledge."
"No possibility to write or edit any capability."
"For improvements, I'd like to see more use cases integrated with Microsoft Sentinel and support for multi-cloud environments beyond just Azure."
"SUSE NeuVector could improve by increasing its visibility into other elements of the DevSecOps pipeline. Additionally, scanning around infrastructure would be helpful."
"Using a node port instead of a cluster IP is less ideal when implementing federation features between two clusters and could be improved."
"SUSE NeuVector should provide more security protection rules and better container image scanning."
"We are also working with IaaS VMS, but NeuVector doesn't support virtual machines."
"I would say that this solution should improve monitoring and reporting. I would also like to see more integrations so that we could essentially make it a part of a developing pipeline."
"The tool should offer seamless integration of other security tools while in a hybrid environment."
"However, I found that the support in Egypt was not very qualified, and there was a need to upgrade to a higher support layer to solve my issues."
"The image-scanning features need improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is cost-effective."
"PingSafe is not very expensive compared to Prisma Cloud, but it's also not that cheap. However, because of its features, it makes sense to us as a company. It's fairly priced."
"It is cheap."
"SentinelOne is relatively cheap. If ten is the most expensive, I would rate it a seven."
"PingSafe's primary advantage is its ability to consolidate multiple tools into a single user interface, but, beyond this convenience, it may not offer significant additional benefits to justify its price."
"Its pricing was a little less than other providers."
"It is a little expensive. I would rate it a four out of ten for pricing."
"We have an enterprise license. It is affordable. I'm not sure, but I think we pay 150,000 rupees per month."
"I rate Microsoft Defender a three out of ten for affordability. The price could be a little lower."
"Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services."
"The price of the solution is good for the features we receive and there is an additional cost for Microsoft premier support. However, some of my potential customers have found it to be expensive and have gone on to choose another solution."
"Azure Defender is a bit pricey. The price could be lower."
"The licensing cost per server is $15 per month."
"The product's pricing policy is generally favorable."
"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."
"This solution is more cost-effective than some competing products. My understanding is that it is based on the number of integrations that you have, so if you have fewer subscriptions then you pay less for the service."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"The solution's pricing could be better. The cost of a subscription is calculated on the basis of work."
"SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution."
"The price of SUSE NeuVector is low. There is an additional cost for support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Container Security solutions are best for your needs.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
5%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
It is cost-effective compared to other solutions in the market.
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
In version 2, a lot of rules have been deployed for Kubernetes security and CDR, which makes a lot of issues of criti...
How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening acros...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
Initially, the cost was reasonable, but additional services from Microsoft sometimes incur extra expenses that seem h...
What do you like most about NeuVector?
The most valuable feature of SUSE NeuVector is its run-time security.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NeuVector?
SUSE NeuVector is an open-source solution. You have to pay for the support.
What needs improvement with NeuVector?
One area for improvement is NeuVector's ability to import CVEs from different sources. Additionally, using a node por...
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
NeuVector
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Figo, Clear Review, Arvato Bertelsmann, Experian, Chime
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. SUSE NeuVector and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,040 professionals have used our research since 2012.