We performed a comparison between Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Wazuh based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Defender is user-friendly and provides decent visibility into threats."
"The most valuable feature is that it's intuitive. It's very intuitive."
"Using Security Center, you have a full view, at any given time, of what's deployed, and that is something that is very useful."
"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."
"When we started out, our secure score was pretty low. We adopted some of the recommendations that Security Center set out and we were able to make good progress on improving it. It had been in the low thirties and is now in the upper eighties."
"DSPM is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the remote workforce capabilities and the general experience of the remote workforce."
"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."
"The most valuable feature of Wazuh is the ELK for doing an investigation."
"The log monitoring and analysis tools are great in addition to SIEM file activity monitoring."
"Some of the strengths of Wazuh that stand out for us include its scalability when deployed on Azure, its open-source nature, which allows for customization based on our needs, and its compatibility with various security solutions like threat intelligence platforms."
"It has efficient SCA capabilities."
"Its cost-effectiveness is the most valuable aspect."
"The most valuable features are the modules and metrics."
"I find the PCI DSS feature the most valuable, along with the feature that monitors the compliance of Windows and the CIS benchmarks on other devices like Unix or Linux systems."
"Good for monitoring, active response, and for vulnerabilities."
"Another thing is that Defender for Cloud uses more resources than CrowdStrike, which my current company uses. Defender for Cloud has two or three processes running simultaneously that consume memory and processor time. I had the chance to compare that with CrowdStrike a few days ago, which was significantly less. It would be nice if Defender were a little lighter. It's a relatively large installation that consumes more resources than competitors do."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
"From my own perspective, they just need a product that is tailored to micro-segmentation so I can configure rules for multiple systems at once and manage it."
"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."
"As an analyst, there is no way to configure or create a playbook to automate the process of flagging suspicious domains."
"The overview provides you with good information, but if you want more details, there is a lot more customization to do, which requires knowledge of the other supporting solutions."
"The solution's portal is very easy to use, but there's one key component that is missing when it comes to managing policies. For example, if I've onboarded my server and I need to specify antivirus policies, there's no option to do that on the portal. I will have to go to Intune to deploy them. That is one main aspect that is missing and it's worrisome."
"The product must improve its UI."
"They need to go towards integrating with more cloud applications and not just OS like Windows and Linux."
"Wazuh doesn't cover sources of events as well as Splunk. You can integrate Splunk with many sources of events, but it's a painful process to take care of some sources of events with Wazuh."
"There's not much I like about Wazuh. Other products I've used were a lot more functional and user friendly. They came with reports and use cases out of the box. We need to configure Wazuh's alerts and monitoring capabilities manually. It'd be nice if we could select from templates and presets for use cases already built and coded."
"Scalability is a constraint in the on-prem version of Wazuh in terms of the volume of logs we can manage."
"They could include flexibility and customization capabilities by modifying for customers based on partner agreements."
"Integration with Vyara could be better."
"The biggest part that's missing is threat intelligence. It isn't inbuilt, and if a sudden incident occurs, we don't get that feedback inside the SIEM tool. That's a big gap, I see. It would be better if we could get the threat intelligence feeds integrated with the SIEM tools. That would help us push value solutions to the clients in a big way."
"There could be a hardware monitoring tool for the solution."
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is ranked 3rd in Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) with 46 reviews while Wazuh is ranked 2nd in Log Management with 38 reviews. Microsoft Defender for Cloud is rated 8.0, while Wazuh is rated 7.4. 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 Wazuh writes "It integrates seamlessly with AWS cloud-native services". Microsoft Defender for Cloud is most compared with AWS GuardDuty, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft Defender XDR, Wiz and Trend Vision One - Cloud Security, whereas Wazuh is most compared with Elastic Security, Security Onion, Splunk Enterprise Security, AlienVault OSSIM and SentinelOne Singularity Complete. See our Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs. Wazuh report.
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.
