No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Dragos vs Microsoft Defender for IoT comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Dragos
Ranking in Operational Technology (OT) Security
4th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
4.3
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Defender for IoT
Ranking in Operational Technology (OT) Security
6th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
IoT Security (4th), Microsoft Security Suite (22nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Operational Technology (OT) Security category, the mindshare of Dragos is 7.6%, down from 11.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for IoT is 4.3%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Operational Technology (OT) Security Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Dragos7.6%
Microsoft Defender for IoT4.3%
Other88.1%
Operational Technology (OT) Security
 

Featured Reviews

Rajesh Podishetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager at a tech vendor with 51-200 employees
Risk monitoring has improved and real-time fraud detection provides transparent banking control
Dragos should be improved in deployment complexity as it requires OT engineering coordination. One needs to have proper engineering coordination to understand the system, deploy it, integrate it, and make all the complex things into one system. This is very challenging, and one should be really skillful and have experience to accomplish this. Cost is another area for improvement. The cost is higher due to site-based licensing and expert services. The licensing is very heavy, and expert services are required for deployment. Cost-wise is also challenging and needs to be improved. Integration needs alignment with IT security systems and compliance frameworks. Controlling cybersecurity where any fraudulent person or third party should not access the system is controlled, and managing that level of complexity is quite challenging. Since there is continuous monitoring, it can reduce operational risk losses by 20% to 30% annually. Controlling that huge amount of data and transactions, especially regarding storage, requires a lot of database space. The space-wise storage should be reduced.
Luis Gabriel Mieles Benavides - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Architect at Sonda S.A.
Security monitoring has become proactive and threat hunting is now faster and more precise
The best features of Microsoft Defender for IoT are that it is easy to find where the intruder is and easy to capture and hunt intruders. When I need to send a full scan for a device, it is straightforward. I have worked with Symantec, which is an antivirus, and McAfee, where I send full scans in a similar way to how I do it in Azure Defender, and it is equally easy. I can take actions with the device, such as disconnecting it, turning it off, or sending an alarm. The integration with Azure Defender and Azure Sentinel is seamless because they are from the same company. They capture intruders, viruses, worms, and everything else easily, and I can fix problems quickly. I use the network visibility features daily to manage connected assets. Currently, I am closing a case with Mutual Asesorías where they have a computer with intruders attempting to force brute capture the password. I can see how the intruder tried to do this, and my work involves closing the IP origin in this case.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Dragos' best features are that they are more focused towards Incident Response, so they have a dedicated playbook in their platform, making it easier for anyone investigating any incidents to investigate the alerts."
"Dragos especially ensures systems recover quickly, providing resilience, and it handles all the operational resilience in banking with metrics of 99.9% uptime, 30 minutes recovery time, and 99% transaction accuracy."
"I have been working with Dragos almost since the time when they started the company."
"Dragos has positively impacted my organization by aiding us to compensate our time."
"Dragos is more expensive than other vendors, probably about fifteen to twenty percent more, but it is generally worth the investment."
"The best features of Microsoft Defender for IoT are that it is easy to find where the intruder is and easy to capture and hunt intruders."
"I find Microsoft Defender very effective in vulnerability management and it provides good attack reduction, making it a next-generation protection solution."
"As a cybersecurity consultant, the best part of Microsoft Defender for IoT is the capability to integrate with other tools such as Microsoft Sentinel and receive real-time alerts from the product."
"Some advantages of Microsoft Defender for IoT are that it's easy to install on any OS, and you can create any custom use cases easily."
"I believe it is best suited for cloud services and is unmatched by other cloud security solutions."
"The graphics and analysis in Microsoft Defender for IoT are very representative."
"Mainly, it is manageable and integrates with other Microsoft products, which is crucial for me."
 

Cons

"Dragos should be improved in deployment complexity as it requires OT engineering coordination."
"Dragos could improve its asset visibility and discovery tools, as the competitor Claroty has better options in this area."
"I think Dragos can offer more flexibility similar to Nozomi and more visibility into the assets, nodes, and links, which would make it more competitive in the future."
"Dragos basically helped us get to know the entire infrastructure because there were many devices that not even the client themselves knew existed or that were still active, making it a very good tool; however, it requires a lot of hardware and knowledge, especially expertise from people who have worked in the industry and know security, which was lacking in the company where it was implemented, leading to lucky hits but ultimately prompting my decision to change companies."
"Dragos is very expensive, charging more than the OEMs. For example, if a PLC costs ten thousand dollars, a customer pays Dragos almost one to ten price in relation to what they would have spent building their plant."
"From my point of view, Dragos cannot be improved at the moment, but having more user-friendly platforms would be good."
"Customer service and support from Microsoft are costly. The execution by engineers is expensive, and the service is neither free nor toll-free, making it less accessible for customers."
"The primary area that needs improvement is compatibility with the latest IoT technologies."
"There are a few limitations with Microsoft Defender for IoT. We raised concerns with the product team because they don't capture all the information regarding command execution or processes executed on certain endpoints."
"The documentation for Microsoft Defender for IoT is lacking. There are no clear steps or guidance, and updates are frequent, which adds to the confusion."
"The only improvement I see is that some detection explanations are vaguely provided by Microsoft, resulting in generic IoT detections that alert me to an issue yet don't specify what's wrong."
"Microsoft Defender for IoT is not scalable. If you want to monitor another industrial network, you need an additional server, making it less scalable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Operational Technology (OT) Security solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Energy/Utilities Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Large Enterprise4
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Dragos?
Pricing-wise, I am not certain because there is a third party who handles the pricing in my company. The setup cost and licensing is quite critical. Licensing is always handled for access users, an...
What needs improvement with Dragos?
Being able to do more tuning and investigation in the dashboard to search for interesting things, along with some threat hunting, would help identify something beyond what is already there. Dragos ...
What is your primary use case for Dragos?
The main use case I had for Dragos during that period was for infrastructure monitoring and to begin detecting any incidents or problems that could arise, especially configuration failures, such as...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Defender for IoT?
In my case, I do not work with the pricing for Microsoft Defender for IoT because I work for the operator. However, I know that every device costs $15 per device, and I think this is a good price a...
What needs improvement with Microsoft Defender for IoT?
At this moment, there are no areas that could be improved with Microsoft Defender for IoT in general. When I look inside the solution, I can see every point and every source of attempted intrusions...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Defender for IoT?
Sonda is an integrator with its head office in Chile. I work from Colombia for a Chilean company that has many different types of clients. I currently work for Mutual Asesorías, which is a financia...
 

Also Known As

Dragos Platform
Azure Defender for IoT
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NaturEner
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Dragos vs. Microsoft Defender for IoT and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.