Imperva Data Security vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud comparison

"The benefits are operational. The outcome comes from preventing an attack on the organization. On the operational side, you generally have good, decent security measures for your application, database, and digital assets."

"If something malicious occurs, I can set a policy to block it, review the action, and decide whether to release it if it's found not to be malicious."

"The most valuable features include a great level of automation, machine learning for attack validation, and a very flexible and comfortable management console."

"The time to detect vulnerabilities has gotten a lot quicker."

"I recommend the product to other users."

"It works seamlessly on the Azure platform because it's a Microsoft app. Its setup is similar, so if you already have a Microsoft account, it just flows into it."

"The solution is used for risks, vulnerabilities, and compliance."

"The most valuable features are the security recommendations provided by Defender for Cloud."

"I would like to see more connectors and plugins with other platforms."

"Provides a very good view of the entire security setup of your organization."

"Defender for Cloud has improved our security posture."

"The most valuable features of the solution are the insights, meaning the remediation suggestions, as well as the incident alerts."

"The solution's robust security posture is the most valuable feature."

"Imperva Data Security needs to improve first-level support."

"The development mode on the platform needs improvement."

"The development mode on the platform needs improvement. For example, the archiving functionalities should be enhanced to allow easy conversion of archived logs into CSV or Excel formats for data analysis."

"The deployment is not easy."

"One area for improvement is the inclusion of a load balancer in on-premises solutions."

"I would like to see more connectors and plugins with other platforms."

"I would like to see more connectors and plugins with other platforms."

"After getting a recommendation, it takes time for the solution to refresh properly to show that the problem has been eliminated."

"Most customer teams need more training on this type of product."

"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."

"Sometimes, it's very difficult to determine when I need Microsoft Defender for Cloud for a special resource group or certain kinds of products. That's not an issue directly with the product, though."

"Pricing could be improved. There are limited options based on pricing for the government."

"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 pricing is reasonably good in South Africa."

"Pricing is a consideration, but we strive to keep costs low by enabling only necessary services."

"Microsoft Defender for Cloud is pricey, especially for Kubernetes clusters."

"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."

"I rate Microsoft Defender a three out of ten for affordability. The price could be a little lower."

"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."

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

"Defender's basic version is free, which is good. Many of our teams are evaluating the paid version against third-party products."

"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."