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

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Trellix Cloud Workload Security comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 6, 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 Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (6th), Cloud and Data Center Security (5th), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) (3rd), Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP) (3rd), Compliance Management (2nd)
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (9th), Container Security (4th), 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)
Trellix Cloud Workload Secu...
Ranking in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 2.5%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 13.9%, down from 17.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Trellix Cloud Workload Security is 0.3%, down from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP)
 

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.
Madan Mohan - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy policy designing and highly scalable solution
The customers really want protection against unauthorized applications running on their servers. They should avoid installing any unknown source and use Trellix Cloud Workload Security for the best solution in workload security. It includes DNS with ransomware protection. With this, they can have complete protection for their servers. Additionally, any solution working with the database should implement change control. So, if any changes are made on the database side, they should be resolved and verified to ensure they are not made by any unknown source. This is the best solution we suggest to customers who want granular control to protect their servers. It's easy to deploy with a single agent. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten because policy designing is very easy too. And the manageability is very easy. You can easily manage it through EPO and deploy policies within five to ten minutes. No issues with that.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is excellent, and I highly recommend it."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security offers several valuable features, most notably the rapid vulnerability notifications that provide timely alerts regarding our infrastructure."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"The most valuable feature is the notification system, providing real-time alerts and comparisons crucial for maintaining security."
"The remediation process is good."
"We like the platform and its response time. We also like that its console is user-friendly as well as modern and sleek."
"The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best features."
"We like PingSafe's vulnerability assessment and management features, and its vulnerability databases."
"The scalability of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is very good."
"The most valuable feature for me is the variety of APIs available."
"The most valuable feature is the comprehensive overview across different workloads. It allows us to see protection not just across one workload, such as virtual machines, containers, infrastructure, or data, but across all our workloads. This overall visibility is really helpful."
"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."
"The valuable features include the ability to manage devices and the fact that Defender can replace other security tools like SCCM."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud has significantly enhanced our overall security posture by approximately 20 to 25 percent."
"Good compliance policies."
"It helps you to identify the gaps in your solution and remediate them. It produces a compliance checklist against known standards such as ISO 27001, HIPAA, iTrust, etc."
"The most valuable feature is the application control."
"The discovery feature is the most valuable. After you integrate your cloud environment, maybe an Azure or AWS, or a private environment hosted on VMware, it automatically starts discovering the number of servers that are running on that cloud and the number of services that you have done. It is a beautiful feature because, from a security standpoint, it is difficult to identify which VM is compliant or not when you keep on provisioning a number of VMs in the cloud. It also checks for compliance. It checks whether a system is compliant and whether antivirus is installed on a VM. If an antivirus is installed, it checks whether the antivirus is updated to the latest signature package or not. All these things are beautifully done by McAfee Cloud Workload Security. For communicating with the McAfee server, you need to install an agent on the VM. McAfee Cloud Workload Security gives you a direct opportunity to install an agent on a Windows machine. If you have a Windows cloud, you can directly push that agent onto the VM through your McAfee portal. It provides you a single dashboard view of all servers present in the cloud. It shows the servers on which the antivirus is already installed as well as the servers for which the antivirus installation is still pending. This dashboard view is a much-needed thing. It also has a centralized management, which makes it easy to use."
 

Cons

"If I had to pick a complaint, it would be the way the hosts are listed in the tool. You have different columns separated by endpoint name, Cloud Account, and Cloud Instances ID. I wish there was something where we could change the endpoint name and not use just the IP address. We would like to have custom names or our own names for the instances. If I had a complaint, that would be it, but so far, it meets all the needs that we have."
"They can work on policies based on different compliance standards."
"A beneficial improvement for PingSafe would be integration with Jira, allowing for a more streamlined ticketing system."
"I would prefer to see SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security develop into a single pane of glass for ASPM and CSPM."
"When you find a vulnerability and resolve it, the same issue will not occur again. I want PingSafe to block the same vulnerability from appearing again. I want something like a playbook where the steps that we take to resolve an issue are repeated when that issue happens again."
"We use PingSafe and also SentinelOne. If PingSafe integrated some of the endpoint security features of SentinelOne, it would be the perfect one-stop solution for everything. We wouldn't need to switch between the products. At my organization, I am responsible for endpoint security and vulnerability management. Integrating both functions into one application would be ideal because I could see all the alerts, heat maps, and reports in one console."
"I personally use the SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security daily, and I have noticed that the dashboard occasionally gets stuck, potentially due to internet issues. It could benefit from enhancements to be more robust and smoother."
"The recommended actions aren't always specific, so it might suggest recommendations that don't apply to the particular infrastructure code I'm reviewing."
"Microsoft Graph needs improvement."
"Microsoft Defender for Cloud could be improved by adding capabilities for NetApp files and more PaaS resources from other vendors, not just Microsoft."
"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."
"We haven't experienced issues with Microsoft Defender for Cloud for our company size of about five hundred people. However, I've heard there might be issues with scalability for larger enterprises."
"There needs to be improvement in the security recommendations, particularly in attack path mapping. Sometimes, it misleads users about the real exposure of external-facing assets."
"The pricing could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."
"They could always work to make the pricing a bit lower."
"My experience with Microsoft Defender for Cloud has been largely negative due to a poor user experience."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model."
"Its vulnerability assessment is not the best. We cannot identify the vulnerabilities that are related to the operating system by using McAfee Cloud Workload Security. I wish McAfee would add a vulnerability assessment tool that will not only identify the vulnerability but will also be able to generate a report so that the required patching can be done for the servers. Currently, McAfee Cloud Workload Security only integrates with AWS and Azure. If it can also integrate with GCP, Alibaba, and other cloud services available in the market, it would be good because not all people are using Azure and AWS."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"While I'm slightly out of touch with pricing, I know SentinelOne is much cheaper than other products."
"The tool is cost-effective."
"PingSafe's pricing is good because it provides us with a solution."
"I would rate the cost a seven out of ten with ten being the most costly."
"Their pricing appears to be based simply on the number of accounts we have, which is common for cloud-based products."
"Pricing is based on modules, which was ideal for us."
"We found it to be fine for us. Its price was competitive. It was something we were happy with. We are not a Fortune 500 company, so I do not know how pricing scales at the top end, but for our cloud environment, it works very well."
"It is cheap."
"We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center."
"The cost is fair. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fee."
"Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services."
"There are improvements that have to be made to the licensing. Currently, for servers, it has to be done by grouping the servers on a single subscription... We don't have an option whereby, if all those resources are in one subscription, we can have each of the individual servers subject to different planning."
"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."
"Defender's basic version is free, which is good. Many of our teams are evaluating the paid version against third-party products."
"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."
"Azure Defender is definitely pricey, but their competitors cost about the same. For example, a Palo Alto solution is the same price per endpoint, but the ground strikes cost a bit more than Azure Defender. Still, it's pricey for a company like ours. Maybe well-established organizations can afford it, but it might be too costly for a startup."
"It is not an expensive product. I am in the Indian market, and it is one of the most reliable and cost-effective solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions are best for your needs.
849,190 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%
Comms Service Provider
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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?
SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is an excellent CSPM tool, but its CWPP features need improvement, and there i...
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 McAfee Cloud Workload Security?
The most valuable feature is the application control.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for McAfee Cloud Workload Security?
I would rate it a seven out of ten, where one is a low price, and ten is a high price. Trellix doesn't charge any add...
What needs improvement with McAfee Cloud Workload Security?
There is room for improvement in the pricing model. The price could be a bit lower.
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
McAfee Cloud Workload Security
 

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.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Trellix Cloud Workload Security and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,190 professionals have used our research since 2012.