HashiCorp Nomad vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud comparison

"If you face an issue with an image during deployment, the solution will automatically revert to the last stable image."

"You could get most of HashiCorp Nomad's features from other microservice orchestrators like Kubernetes. The tool's advantage is its ease of use and integration with services like Envoy. With Kubernetes, you must think about many things, like UI integration, which vault to use, and how to discover the service. With the tool, many things come out of the box, making it easy to start. For example, using the Ingress proxy with the tool is quite easy, while it's trickier with Kubernetes."

"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 notification process of Microsoft Defender for Cloud has been the most valuable feature. The notification process is effortless, as it can tell me right there and then locate issues pretty fast, saving us a lot of time by not having to dig through all the warnings."

"It's got a lot of great features."

"Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture."

"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."

"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."

"The feature of Microsoft Defender for Cloud that I have found most valuable is the alerts, which are pretty standard for security."

"It isn't a highly complex solution. It's something that a lot of analysts can use. Defender gives you a broad overview of what's happening in your environment, and it's a great solution if you're a Microsoft shop."

"It would be good to have a UI interface so that developers could receive notifications for jobs in a bad state."

"I've noticed a few UI issues. For example, when monitoring services and tasks, sometimes the tasks keep disconnecting. If you open the shell in HashiCorp Nomad using the exit button, it often disconnects, and you have to log in again. Sometimes, when I check the logs in the UI for microservices tasks, I encounter an issue where the logs are not visible. However, if I log in again after some time, refresh the page, or check a different container, the logs usually appear. These logs are being generated, as I can see them being shipped to my LogView. I'm not sure if this is a product issue or something related to our deployment, but I've noticed it."

"It needs to be simplified and made more user-friendly for a non-technical person."

"The most significant areas for improvement are in the security of our identity and endpoints and the posture of the cloud environment. Better protection for our cloud users and cloud apps is always welcome."

"Microsoft can improve the pricing by offering a plan that is more cost-effective for small and medium organizations."

"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."

"The amount billed for the amount of terabytes you're scanning is too high and will lead into security risks if somebody is limiting the amount of data to be scanned based on the cost, so this is something I would prefer to be changed."

"Microsoft does a fairly good job, but many products are developed from an engineer's perspective rather than the end user perspective, making the intuitive flow of the interface sometimes less than optimal."

"Microsoft Defender for Cloud can be improved because many of the functions involve multiple places to accomplish the same task, which can make it convoluted."

"I recommend that they extend the scope for legacy infra assets."

"Pricing depends on your workload size, but it is very cheap. If you're talking about virtual machines, it is $5 or something for each machine, which is minimal. If you go for some agent-based solution for every virtual machine, then you need to pay the same thing or more than that. For an on-premises solution like this, we were paying around $30 to $50 based on size. With Defender, Microsoft doesn't bother about the size. You pay based on the number of machines. So, if you have 10 virtual machines, and 10 virtual machines are being monitored, you are paying based on that rather than the size of the virtual machine. Thus, you are paying for the number of units rather than paying for the size of your units."

"Currently, Microsoft offers only one plan at the enterprise level which is $15 per machine."

"The pricing and licensing of Microsoft Defender for Cloud have been good for us. We appreciate the licensing approach based on employee count rather than a big enterprise license."

"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."

"The licensing is straightforward but can become expensive if you cover everything. You must balance the cost against the importance of what needs covering."

"I am not involved in this area. However, I believe its price is okay because even small customers are using Azure Security Center. I don't think it is very expensive."

"The solution is expensive, and I rate it a five to six out of ten."

"This is a worldwide service and depending on the country, there will be different prices."