Microsoft Defender XDR Reviews

We use the standard Microsoft services and solutions for our entire IT infrastructure, so we leverage most 365 Defender services, including Sentinel, Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoint, Defender for Cloud, Defender for Cloud Apps, and Defender for O365. We use all those solutions to secure our IT infrastructure and environments.

We deliver Microsoft services to users worldwide, including SharePoint and Exchange Online. Gmail is the one minor exception where we do something slightly different. 365 Defender currently covers 5,000 endpoints and between 10,000 to 15,000 identities. There are more identities than endpoints because we don't give everyone a company laptop. 

A larger organization absorbed my company that moved to Microsoft security products a little while ago, so it was natural to do the same at my company. The biggest benefit of going with Microsoft is that it's a huge company with lots of resources to put into security.

Most devices use the Microsoft's operating system and products these days. They get a lot of data from all those users, which helps them stay ahead of the competition. They process a few billion security-related signals daily, helping them deliver a better solution to us.

Introducing 365 Defender and Sentinel was the best decision we ever made. Many organizations have most of these components in place but aren't effectively leveraging them. 

They might be using a managed services provider that forces them only to use products from their partners. Still, they have an enterprise license with Microsoft that includes Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, which is part of the 365 solution. I think it makes more sense for people to use Microsoft security solutions too.

We can automate security tasks to a degree. There are several automation options, but it depends on the definitions of analytics rules, queries, etc. Microsoft provides many of those in its out-of-the-box catalog with many additional third-party queries that you can use. You can fully automate things as soon as you have your queries defined. Getting there might be a little difficult. 

Microsoft 365 Defender saved me from looking at multiple dashboards. There are still separate dashboards for Sentinel and 365 Defender, but the same alerts and incidents are generated on both consoles. The only difference is that 365 Defender won't show you anything you've customized on Sentinel. 

There is a separate Microsoft-specific intelligence dashboard that Microsoft keeps up to date. As soon as there is a specific threat that may affect our organization, it shows up on the dashboard, and we can see the sources of the attack, the path, and all the other information you need. It's useful, but I don't think our security operations center is using it. They only rely on third-party threat intelligence resources. 

We've saved time using 365 Defender because rolling it out is easy. The hardest thing is pushing it out to all the devices you are managing. Using a third-party device management solution might be slightly more complicated, but it's straightforward within the Microsoft ecosystem. 

I'm not sure how much money we've saved overall, but they previously used McAfee EDR for antivirus, which was costly. Most of our existing solutions are Microsoft, so we were already entitled to use Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. We weren't using Microsoft security solutions because someone decided they preferred McAfee many years ago. 

The McAfee contact was around a few million, and the full Microsoft enterprise license was also a few million. Using the security solutions bundled with the Microsoft license probably cut our costs in half.

It's hard to say how much our detection and response time decreased because we didn't have a comparable solution. Instead of going to a portal for McAfee or making Splunk ingest all kinds of profiles, we could dump all the data into a more analytical tool to get all these alerts.

Having a single pane of glass for all Microsoft security services makes everything much easier. A security analyst can go to a single portal and see everything in one view. The integration of everything into one portal is a huge benefit. 

Defender provides a lot of detailed information about your environment. It may be challenging for people without much experience to get the data they need because it can also be overwhelming. At the end of the day, Defender gives you almost all the information you need for anything you want to do, and Microsoft is working to extend that further. Some areas may not be fully integrated into 365 Defender yet.

There's also a vulnerability management feature. It installs an agent on all your devices to check where you're vulnerable, so you can resolve the issue. Once you get hit by an attack, you can disrupt the attack using an advanced AI.  

We use all of the Microsoft security solutions. They do an excellent job of making it simple to integrate the security features. It's easy if you have a little experience, and there is a lot of documentation if you are entirely new. 

The various Microsoft solutions work seamlessly together, especially the Sentinel part. Attack disruption is almost fully automated.

Sentinel can ingest data from our entire ecosystem with some additional work. Technically, you could ingest anything. It would be easier if there were an out-of-the-box way to integrate it, which already exists for many components. However, several third-party products do not have out-of-the-box connectivity, so you may need to do some fairly complex work. On the other hand, it is relatively simple to ingest data from most big-name products.

Sentinel enables us to investigate and respond to threats from one place, which is essential because IT environments are increasingly complex. There are so many servers, cloud services, applications, etc. Using multiple portals to view security incidents doesn't work anymore. 

You still need to configure Sentinel to ingest data from other third-party solutions, but much of the data is readily available if you primarily use Microsoft products. There's a lot of overlap between Defender and Sentinel, but as soon as you go outside the Microsoft domain, you must start using Sentinel. 

Sentinel is comprehensive. It stacks up well against some of the other big names in the SIEM space. Microsoft plans to add even more advanced features like behavioral analytics. AI is a huge topic right now, and Microsoft is ahead of the curve compared to other solutions in the security quadrant.

It already integrates natively with the Microsoft ecosystem, but there is still room for a minor improvement in third-party integration. Another issue is that the portal is sometimes less intuitive than you would like. That's probably because they're consolidating various security products, and there are a few legacy things left over that complicate matters in some cases. 

Still, if you gave someone who works in security access for the first time, that person would be impressed and wouldn't have any specific complaints. You only start to notice a few small things once you used them for a while, but nothing is significant. 

Microsoft 365 Defender combines several Microsoft solutions, and I used the component solutions of 365 before they were consolidated into one solution. For example, I started using Defender ATP four years ago, but I've only used 365 Defender for around three years.

Overall, the stability is top-notch.

I haven't seen any limits to 365 Defender's scalability. I don't know if you would have issues once you start adding 200,000 endpoints. There might be some glitches here or there. Scalability seems to be an area where Microsoft's cloud solutions excel. 

I rate Microsoft's support a four out of ten. Support is hit or miss. Microsoft wants you to buy premium support contracts. Though they call themselves professional support, it's almost like throwing questions into a black hole. You get an answer, but it's never helpful. 

If you invest in what they call "Unified Support," it's slightly better. You get good answers quite often, but it sometimes takes a long time. They should be going to the public group to discuss technical features, and they don't do that.

In some cases, their answers make no sense. I recently caught a support person making a statement I knew was incorrect, so I had to go back to somebody in the product group at Microsoft to get them to confirm. In my opinion, it's better to invest in a support partner. These companies specialize in this. They might know a fix or shortcuts to get high-level support. Their IT department may have contacts with people in Microsoft's public group, so they can get answers faster. 

Before my company was acquired, we used a few solutions, but they also started drifting toward Microsoft in the last year. They were also shifting from third-party solutions to Microsoft solutions. They used McAfee for endpoint protection and eventually switched to Carbon Black. 

If you asked me five years ago if I would recommend a Microsoft security solution, I probably would have said "No," but they've come a long way in a short time and made a lot of investments in that area. Seven years ago, I would also have chosen something like McAfee or Carbon Black.

365 Defender is a cloud-based solution, so you don't plan and deploy the individual components like a traditional endpoint solution. You have components installed on-prem, like the firmware for endpoints, and you run Lambda for Cloud on your servers, which may be in the cloud. We also have servers hosted in a Microsoft. Our environment combines multiple things. 

I was primarily responsible for the deployment. I found it mostly straightforward, but I also have experience and a Microsoft expert certification on many of these topics. If you've never done this before, the good news is that Microsoft documentation is excellent. It gives you all the steps that you need to take. But then it will take you a bit longer to follow the instructions. I can almost do this with my eyes closed, but it will take a lot longer for someone new to this. 

If you have some experience, you could theoretically set this up in a few days. It wouldn't be completely deployed because you may need to write several analytics rules in Sentinel, depending on your environment. The integration with Microsoft apps is one click.

I did the planning, but our IT partner did the hands-on work. The design stage took a little longer here. We discussed which features to enable and which might cause our users too many problems. That process took about two or three months. The actual deployment was finished in a few weeks. The only limiting factor was that we needed to ensure all the endpoint software was installed, which took some time. 

After the deployment, there is a little maintenance, but it's pretty automated. We need to be extra careful in some areas. Microsoft often releases new features that replace and disable existing features. Administrators may need to go into the various services and change settings. You also need to push updates to the endpoints. 

Microsoft does this automatically, but you can use a device management solution. How often do you want to do this, and how quickly? Do you want to delay specific updates to the antivirus engine for testing purposes? 

For example, Microsoft messed up about four months ago when they pushed out an update automatically to all the global endpoints. Depending on our settings, it causes certain file types to be seen as malicious and deleted from user devices. 

For example, it was deleting shortcuts. You can imagine if you came into the office on a Monday morning, and all the shortcuts have been deleted. It might make sense to test the updates to ensure they're working. You have many options to manage this, so it's flexible in that sense. It's just a matter of your organization's cybersecurity priorities. 

Microsoft customers can opt into server health notifications. You get a lot of notifications, but they may not affect your organization, and not all of them are serious. 

365 Defender can get expensive because you pay per gigabyte of data ingested. On the other hand, much of the data available in the other Microsoft security solutions are made available relatively cheaply—sometimes at cost or for free. Integrating only a limited set of third-party solutions with Sentinel would be cost-effective. It's much more affordable if companies only have Microsoft solutions. 

Data ingestion and log storage costs are relatively expensive, and you also need to consider the labor investments in fine-tuning all the analytics rules, etc. However, those costs will be similar to any product.

Microsoft licensing is highly complex, so you must carefully pick the license you need. People tend to choose the cheapest license or take a more expensive one to ensure that all possible features they need are covered. The price difference between those two options is vast. 

Some of these services are there without a license. That's problematic because the Microsoft agreements state you must license them. You might assume that you can use it. There are no restrictions in some cases, so some companies may have a problem. If Microsoft finds out, they'll get stuck with a bill because they were using something without a license. 

I rate Microsoft 365 Defender a nine out of ten. Microsoft is doing extremely well, and they plan to add a lot of new features, which is going to be exciting for many people in the security area. 

I always recommend a proof of concept, but I believe you'll be fine if most of your environment is Microsoft. These solutions also support Apple hardware, so that shouldn't be a problem either. If you're entirely using Microsoft products, I would say it's a no-brainer, especially if you are already invested in a Microsoft 365 license.

At the same time, Microsoft's licensing is extremely complicated, and there are several different licenses that go up in price quickly. You might need a licensing consultant because they know the details. You could also go in the opposite direction there. Somebody might try to sell you the most expensive Microsoft plan because they believe you need it, but you lose money if you're not using it.

Security 101 tells you, "Don't bet on a single vendor." I agree with that on a certain level because what happens if Microsoft gets compromised? But on the other hand, the native integration you get from using Microsoft security solutions is worthwhile. 

I've had this conversation with my CEO at some point. They raised the question of what would happen if Microsoft were compromised. I told them that Microsoft is one organization, but each of these product groups acts like its own startup in the sense that there is a subset of infrastructure devoted to each. If one part of Microsoft is compromised, it does not mean the whole of Microsoft is compromised. I always tell people to let go of that principle, but I understand the desire to introduce additional tooling. 

We're a small business. Defender XDR gives us a centralized security solution for monitoring our servers and some user PCs. We have around 30 machines, 10 of which are servers. 

Defender XDR saves the security team time by telling us what patches to apply. We also get preemptive notes about things that need to be done.

I like Defender XDR's reports and alerts. They give you updates about the latest hotfixes and zero-day vulnerabilities, which gives me all the information I need to maintain my servers. 

Defender's AI for identifying suspicious activity could be improved. Also, I do a lot of home updates. Maybe there is a way to set it up faster. For example, let's say that I want to automatically update seven computers, servers, etc. I wouldn't do it to a user, but maybe the server. I don't mind if the server restarts automatically.

I have used Defender XDR for a year.

Defender XDR is stable.

Defender is scalable. I haven't had any issues with that part.  

Microsoft support is good. I usually don't contact them directly. We have a support partner. If there's an issue, they can resolve it with Microsoft quickly.

We previously used Symantec antivirus. We're a small company, so switching wasn't a big deal. We switched because Symantec discontinued the solution we were using. They actually don't sell it anymore.

I wasn't involved in the decision to purchase Defender XDR. We are a small company, so we needed a vendor to support SMEs, and Microsoft caters to businesses of all sizes. We checked some other solutions but went with Defender because we're already on Azure, so the solutions complement each other.

Deploying Defender XDR was easy. Our external security guy handled most of the settings and onboarding, and our IT guy handled a few of the problematic cases. Most of the maintenance was automatic.

I don't know the exact pricing, but I believe Defender offered the best small business solution for the price.

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR nine out of 10. I don't have experience with other XDRs that I can compare it to, but I think Defender is an excellent solution. It's fairly easy to understand and navigate, and it's a good value.

We use Defender XDR to assign roles and monitor based on the analytics report from Microsoft. 

Defender XDR has improved the organization's confidentiality. If there's a DLP violation, such as someone sharing documents inappropriately, a notification will automatically trigger. Defender stops the movement of advanced attacks. We first need to set up some independent indicators of compromise. The IOCs are connected to some attack surface reduction rules.

We get alerts if someone tries installing something on the system or adding an external hard drive. We get security recommendations from Microsoft, but our security implements them on their own. We don't use the AI feature. We see significant time savings from the alerts based on the indicators of compromise. It saves us about 10 to 15 percent.

The best feature is probably the alert generation. When I do a security reset, the other session triggers instantly from the Defender console, and I can work on it. The policies are three times, but they are also ready to install it.

The identity management feature is something we need for our use case. It wraps up the access management and XDR components, so it's not just Defender. It works well with Azure AD for access management. I didn't think I needed identity and access management in the past, but it's nice to have if you're performing a significant migration on a tight schedule. 

Defender XDR's coverage extends beyond Microsoft technologies. It covers all the endpoints of users in the organization. I can manage access to any application and system within the organization. 

Defender XDR could provide recommendations for threat-hunting queries. Some people do not know how to write an advanced threat query, so we need to spend time training them. 

We have used Defender XDR for about 15 months.

I rate Defender XDR 10 out of 10 for stability. It's a stable solution. We've had no outages. 

The scalability depends on the number of licenses you can purchase. If I want to add more endpoints or solutions from Microsoft XDR, I have to pay more. The scale depends on the pricing. 

I rate Microsoft support eight out of 10. Some cases are easy fixes, so they don't take much time, whereas some of our more complex tickets take some time.

Positive

I've also worked with Trellix. Microsoft provides better recommendations for protecting our tools, devices, and files. Trellix has XDR capabilities, too, but Microsoft's recommendations are more robust. 

Defender XDR is a SaaS solution. The deployment is ongoing because we're constantly onboarding and retiring endpoints. Microsoft handles most of the maintenance for it. It rarely requires maintenance from our end. 

Defender XDR is fairly priced and cost-effective. 

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR eight out of 10. If you want to implement this product, you should have a team who understands the product well. It's SaaS-based, so the Microsoft team is delivering everything to you. However, you still need to know the product.

We are using Microsoft Defender for Office 365 for identity and email security, safe links, etc.

It works as an antivirus, and it also works for any behavioral issues in a particular machine. It protects all the applications from any vulnerability. It works in both ways. It works for vulnerability management and also for the EDR part. Earlier, we had Qualys for vulnerability management, but Microsoft Defender takes care of both. It provides information about how vulnerable a machine is, and it also takes care of the antivirus and behavioral issues in a particular machine due to some threats or any unwanted applications installed.

It helps us manage vulnerabilities. If there are any vulnerabilities in a machine due to a lack of patches or end-of-life software installed on the machine, it gives us the report. After seeing the report, we can fix those vulnerabilities by uninstalling the vulnerable applications or by patching them.

It takes care of the antivirus part. The signatures are constantly getting updated related to new viruses. It covers any identity-related issues or device-specific issues. It covers the MITRE framework. If any threat or risk is present in our environment, it takes care of that and then tells us that these are the issues that we need to work on. After we get the alerts, we do the investigation and remediation.

It provides unified identity and access management. You can create role-based access. You can create policies based on different risk levels. You can also trigger password resets. There are a lot of capabilities that are built in. You can also create conditional access (CA) policies. If any vulnerable application is installed on a device, you do not want that device to be connected to your network, you can create conditional access policies. It will first check whether the integrity of the device is as per your organization's requirements. If it is compliant, then only that device will be allowed to connect to your network. The same goes for identity. If MFA is enabled in your environment, the users will be allowed to connect only if their accounts have MFA enabled. Otherwise, the access is blocked. You can automate such things.

It is important that identity and access management are included in Microsoft Defender rather than needing an additional solution. Nowadays, you see a lot of phishing emails and unsecure links being forwarded to user accounts. In Microsoft Defender, we have secure links and safe links. Once enabled, if any malicious link is sent to a user account, when the user clicks on a link, it immediately checks whether it is safe to access. If it is found to be malicious, it is immediately blocked. If a user mistakenly clicks on a link, the risk state is changed automatically in the web portal. If you have a conditional policy in place, the access is blocked for that user. Even if the attackers have access, they will not be able to do anything. In today's scenario, it is pretty important to have these in place.

As of now, the integration part is pretty limited to Microsoft products. However, by using Sentinel, which is a SIEM solution, you can integrate other products.

It stops the lateral movement of advanced attacks like ransomware or business email compromise. You can create lateral movement policies, and you also can create high-risk users or high-risk devices. You can have customized policies for them. You can create different policies, and the alerts triggered from those devices or users are put into high severity so that you can take immediate action.

You get the telemetry of any attack observed by Microsoft Defender. You can see everything from the starting point till the remediation steps automatically taken by Microsoft Defender. The investigations can be found easily. They are pretty detailed. Everything is there in the portal.

It has the ability to adapt to evolving threats. Threat intelligence is embedded in the portal itself for new threats, technologies, ransomware, or malware. All the latest threats are automatically handled by Microsoft Defender. Remediation is also automatically available.

It saves time. There is automatic remediation, and there are playbooks that you can configure. You can automate the remediation steps that you have already tried on a particular machine. If you want to suppress some of the alerts, you can create suppression rules so that your team does not spend time investigating them. Playbooks, automatic remediation, and suppression of similar alerts save a lot of time.

Vulnerability management is valuable. We had a different product for vulnerability management. We were using Qualys for that, but after we got Microsoft Defender, we also got the vulnerability management part. It is embedded in the portal itself. We do not have to look into another solution or tool. We did not have to install any additional sensor which reduces the overhead and does not affect the machine's capability. With the same sensor, we get the vulnerability report and threat report. We also get to know any risks and issues related to malware and other things.

The portal is quite user-friendly. There is integration with Office, Intune, and other products from the same portal. From there, we can see which policies are installed on a particular machine. We also can manage devices, groups, and tagging. For a different set of teams or departments, we can create different device groups. Based on the teams and their work portfolio, we can create different policies. It is quite handy, whereas with the Qualys solution, the portal was quite cluttered. To find a particular option, we had to look at many options, whereas Microsoft Defender is quite user-friendly.

We are also getting all the reports by using the same sensor. It is light on the machines as well. It consumes less resources than other solutions available in the market.

It is evolving. We are seeing new advancements and integrations. They have integrated Copilot, so going forward, we can take the AI advantage. It will be quite easy for us to run any queries. These are the advantages that I see in Microsoft Defender in comparison to others.

The patching capability should be there. Patching is something that you cannot do even though you see the vulnerabilities present in your environment. For patching, you have to depend on another solution.

Other than that, there are still limitations in creating device groups. You can create tags, but these tags are based on limited options. There are only a few categories based on which you can create a tag or device group. If there are other conditions that you want to put, such as creating a group based on the application installed on a particular machine, you cannot do that. There are some shortcomings. Also, if you want to whitelist a particular application for a set of groups, you cannot do that. We had an incident where we wanted to whitelist a particular application that was getting blocked by Microsoft Defender, but we were not able to create those groups. We were not able to whitelist the application for some of the devices. We had to whitelist it for the whole environment, which we did not want to do.

It only has pre-built dashboards. You cannot create customized dashboards. They have a set of dashboards, but they are not customizable.

We can create reports using KQL, but it is hard to create customized reports using KQL. You get a CSV, but you need to use Power BI or another reporting product to create the report. The other products available in the market give you customized dashboards, customized reporting, and customized workflows. This is pending in Microsoft Defender.

I have been working with this solution for 1.5 years.

It is a Microsoft product. It is similar to any other Microsoft product in terms of stability. They do change the name and other functionalities, but it is pretty much similar to any other Microsoft product.

It is pretty scalable. It does not stop you anywhere.

I am working in an MNC. We have more than 6,000 people.

It depends upon the license that you have. They have a different set of licenses based on which you get support. It depends on the support packages you have purchased.

It is very easy to raise a request. They have a portal. From there, you can create a ticket by email or by chat. The response is based on the support package that you have. If you have premium support, you can get a response in minutes. 

In my previous organization, I worked with Palo Alto XDR. In this organization, we had McAfee, which is a signature-based solution. Microsoft Defender is more advanced than McAfee. It is EDR-based, whereas McAfree was signature-based. It was based on the signatures related to a particular threat or virus. It was handling threat prevention, but behavioral analysis and other functionalities that you see in EDRs were not there. We wanted to move to a behavioral-based antivirus solution. That is why we opted for Microsoft Defender.

Microsoft Defender also enabled us to discontinue the Qualys solution. It has many capabilities related to vulnerability management. They are available out of the box, but patching is something that is missing. For patching, you need to use Intune, whereas, in Qualys, you can also do patching, so patching is something that is missing in Microsoft Defender. However, Microsoft Defender is very good for the assessment of vulnerabilities.

You also get visibility of the devices that are still not onboarded to Microsoft Defender. You have something called Device Discovery in Microsoft Defender. Once enabled, you can get details of all the machines that still do not have Defender, whereas, in Qualys, you have to create customized or scheduled scans of your network. They then run on a periodic basis, but that is not the case with Microsoft Defender. It is on a real-time basis. The Microsoft Defender client continuously does the scanning, and you get visibility into all the machines on your network that still do not have Microsoft Defender onboarded. However, you cannot do patching with Microsoft Defender.

Microsoft Defender can save costs. Qualys is pretty expensive. Microsoft Defender does vulnerability management out of the box, so if you do not want to do patching and you have another solution for patching, you can save costs. It also has out-of-the-box functionality for identity protection.

It is deployed on a public cloud. If you do not have people in your team who know about this product, Microsoft can give you a vendor to help with deployment, creating the policies, etc.

Overall, it is pretty straightforward because Microsoft Defender is enabled on all Windows machines. All you need to do is to activate the sensor that is already installed. The installation process is not much, but if you want somebody to help you, Microsoft can help you with a list of vendors at a particular location. The vendor can help you with configuring the policies and activating different licenses.

Documentation is available on the Microsoft portal to help you create policies and go forward as per your environment.

We took help from somebody for implementation.

It does not require a lot of people because it is a cloud solution and the sensor is already available in the machine itself. It does not require a lot of manpower to get started with Microsoft Defender and do a migration. However, it also depends on how big your organization is. If it is an MNC with a presence in multiple countries, you might need at least one person per region. If any hands-on support is required on a client machine, you can do troubleshooting remotely or provide on-site support. If you have only one site, you do not need much manpower. A single person can do it.

Its maintenance is similar to any other solution. If you are changing any policy, you have to test them before putting them into production. Apart from that, it does not require anything. The Defender updates are automatically available. You can push them through your patching solution. Its maintenance is not hard.

Every organization has different requirements. In my previous organization, we opted for Palo Alto even though we had Defender and CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike is also a best-in-class solution, but we opted for Palo Alto because it was giving something that was a requirement. In that organization, we also wanted to do some management. We wanted to run some scripts through our XDR solution. CrowdStrike had some limitations. We also wanted to do a console login for a particular machine. CrowdStrike gave that functionality, but it was pretty limited, whereas, in Palo Alto, it was limitless. We could straightaway see the files present on a machine by using the console view. We could run a different set of queries. It did not matter whether we were running a PowerShell script, a Python script, or any other language script because the compiler was embedded in the sensor. Palo Alto met the needs of that company. For the use cases, it was the best fit.

In my current organization, the use cases are different. We only wanted an EDR solution. Also, because most of the products in our environment are from Microsoft, the integration with them was pretty easy. That is why we opted for Microsoft Defender. An organization should look at its use cases and then decide on an EDR/XDR solution.

Comparing Microsoft Defender's EDR capabilities with other solutions, I would recommend going for another solution available in the market. I would rate it a 6 out of 10 because there are a lot of things that are available in other solutions, such as doing a remote of a particular machine and running other language scripts. Other solutions are also better in terms of the isolation of a particular device, removal from the isolation, and granularity of security control. I am not comparing it with others for vulnerability management because Palo Alto or CrowdStrike do not do that. If there are any vulnerabilities and you want to fix them, you have to do all the work.

I've mainly used the EDR component within 365 Defender, which is Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. It does a good job of bringing the whole attack story together, so you can see email activity, endpoint activity, cloud app activity, and some sort of sign-in activity as well relating to Azure AD, but I've mainly dealt with it from the EDR aspect.

It definitely improved visibility when I dealt with this solution, but the main benefit is the advanced hunting because it allows you to uncover threats that you didn't realize were there, or they weren't alerted because you were looking for specific behavior. The custom detection and linking to that is something quite cool because if you know there's a behavior, you want to keep an eye out for it. For example, it might be linked to a recent threat, so you can set up that detection query, and as soon as it finds a result, it will flag an alert. That has definitely helped to be more proactive and a bit more ahead of the curve with attacks. So, it improves visibility and also helps with being proactive.

It helps to prioritize threats across the enterprise. It does assign severity to a threat, but it also gives you an overview at a glance. If you know that your organization is susceptible to certain major threats, those are the ones you probably want to pick up on. With the severity and alerts, it gives you an idea of which is the most pressing incident. If you've got one with just one alert, that's a medium, but if you've got one with five highs. You're probably going to focus on the high one. That helps to prioritize.

It helps automate routine tasks and the finding of high-value alerts to a degree. You can have certain actions where if an event starts on the endpoint, it automatically isolates that. If it occurs, for example, on the email, then you can automatically purge it. It helps with the routine tasks that people would have to manually do in the portal. With automation, it takes care of it automatically if an alert fires. It improves efficiency because, after hours, there might be no one there available to isolate a machine. This way, as soon as the alert fires, that machine is isolated, and the next morning or the next working day, an analyst can go in and see that this alert fired and the endpoint has been isolated. That definitely helps from a coverage perspective when people are unavailable because those actions occur without anyone being present.

It has absolutely helped eliminate having to look at multiple dashboards and have one XDR dashboard. I've got three years of experience. At the start, we had all the individual portals for cloud app security, endpoints, Office, etc. The whole point of 365 is to unify, and they've done a good job. The different components are broken out into sections on the left-hand side, and you can very easily click through them and navigate them. It eliminates the need for multiple tabs and dashboards. It has definitely helped with what they were aiming for, which is to have a single pane of glass view.

It has saved us time by not having multiple dashboards. We don't need to open multiple portals and sign in to them. It definitely saves time there and also in understanding the true story of an attack. It has definitely helped in terms of efficiency. It's hard to quantify the time savings because I'm not using it now, but from what I remember, it saved at least 20% to 25% time just because it does a good job of giving you the information. You can glance at the key information that you need, and then it gives some details, and then you go to other places externally to investigate further.

The threat analytics give you a report on what Microsoft has seen in the world. What I like about those is that they will show you if that's actively impacting your environment at the moment or likely to. For example, if there are vulnerabilities that are being exposed, it tells you whether you're vulnerable or not, so you can protect against them before they are here. One thing I do like is that they also give you advanced hunting queries, so you can look for the behavior associated with those threats and make sure that you've got your coverage in place. I wouldn't necessarily call it threat intelligence. It's more of threat analytics and reporting that they provide.

I'm not aware of whether it saved any money in any of my previous roles, but a lot of organizations have the E5 security license, and they don't realize it. They have third-party vendors doing their email security, endpoint security, and so on, but holistically, Microsoft's E5 license gives you all of those capabilities, and it would also be cheaper than paying multiple vendors.

It decreases your time to detect and time to respond. It does a good job. It has the auto investigation ability so it can automatically detect threats. When you build custom detections, you can have automated response actions. Those two together help you with the mean time to remediate and the mean time to resolve. The information at a glance easily lets you see if it's a false positive or something that you know in your environment, and it's gonna be non-malicious. You can glance over and dismiss those alerts, and you could potentially be setting up suppression so that you don't get notified about them in the future. All in all, it helps you to improve your remediation. The time reduction depends on the scenario. Sometimes, you can instantly see false positives that would decrease your time by 85%. On the whole, there is about 35% to 40% time savings because of the way it correlates with the signals and gives you quick ways to remediate them.

For me, the advanced hunting capabilities have been really great. It allowed querying the dataset with their own language, which is KQL or Kusto Query Language. That has allowed me to get much more insight into the events that have occurred. The whole power of 365 Defender is that you can get the whole story. It allows you to query an email-based activity and then correlate it with an endpoint-based activity. The advanced hunting capabilities have definitely been one of my favorite features.

The way the incidents are put together is also good. It can intelligently correlate activities from email to endpoint, and then you can visually see it in the timeline view or graph view. It does a good job of presenting that incident to you, and it's easy to navigate between it and then pivot to some actions as well.

For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details.

One other limitation is with cloud-based events. Sometimes, you don't get enough details in the alert. You have to go to other portals to then complete the story or do your own research, ask the user, etc. 

The other one is that with Defender for Endpoint, the attack story is quite good in terms of queries and things like that, but sometimes, multiple events for the same thing are captured, and it's not summarized in a good way. You have to open each entry to see what that partial syntax is. It'll be good if it said that this specific partial syntax was seen fifteen times, and maybe it's something to pay attention to. They could also do some sort of pattern matching. There could be some sort of pattern matching where it says that this is the attack trying to do some enumeration or reconnaissance activities. 

I've been using it for over three years.

There are some times when it does have downtime or service outages. They do a good job of updating the service status page to let you know about that, but there have also been misclassifications, for example, for Chrome updates, generating malicious alerts and things like that. On the whole, it's quite stable.

There are sometimes when it can freeze up or not present the data that you want. It gives you data unavailable or other errors, but, usually, these are quite quickly resolved. Sometimes, it's just to do with a particular instance, but sometimes, there can be wider outages. You just have to pay attention to the service status page or raise a support case and then be notified when that's resolved. On the whole, it's fairly stable.

Because it's built on the cloud and for the cloud, it does scale quite well. However, one area where it can be a challenge is when you use the Kusto Query Language for event hunting. Sometimes, if you do quite a generic search across, for example, thirty days of data, it gives you processing errors and limitations. I guess Microsoft does that for two reasons. One, to keep the cost down on their side, and two, from a performance standpoint. That is a bit of a limitation of scaling because if you want to do generic sessions across thirty days, you're not able to, but the idea is that you should be able to filter and granularly restrict conditions to get exactly the events you want. However, it would be nice if you were able to search more widely and if the solution could scale to support that, whereas, currently, it doesn't seem to, but that's not the use case they might have had in mind.

It depends. With some clients, we've had the fast-track option, whereas, with some clients, we just had to raise support cases. Usually, when you raise support cases, you're not going through an SME, so there is a bit of basic troubleshooting and things like that. With the fast-track option, you directly get through to someone who understands security, and you can explain the issue. They understand the issue, and you can get a much quicker response. So, the fast-track option is the one where I've had better success. The normal support can sometimes be a bit drawn. There could be a lot of back and forth about not relevant things just because they're not security trained, so they're trying to understand and then help you. 

It has been a mixed experience. Overall, I would rate them a seven out of ten because there have been some gaps, and there have been some successes, especially through the fast-track program.

Neutral

We didn't have anything that was overarching and correlated all the different signals. We had different products. We had a different product for email security or a different product for the endpoint. I might be wrong here, but I don't think there's another tool that brings those aspects together as well as 365 Defender does.

From what I went through in various roles, it was mostly in the cloud. Defender for Endpoint is a cloud-based solution. In fact, most Defender solutions are now based on the cloud. The only exception is if you've got Defender for Identity. For one of our engagements, I did deal with that, so it was a mixture. Apart from Defender for Identity, all the other solutions have been on the cloud.

In one of my roles prior to my current one, I was doing onboarding for a client with Defender for Endpoint. I was getting them onto it and migrating from McAfee. I was involved in the setup, coordinating the groups and the roles, and things like that. In all the other roles, the tool was already in place. It was just about maturing it and getting hands-on.

The setup was quite complex. Microsoft Docs guide you, but there were a few gaps that I had to fill in. One example is onboarding with group policy. Microsoft does lay all the steps on the docs page, but it doesn't give you screenshots. It doesn't give you things to look out for. It doesn't give you logs that would correlate to those events and things like that. I had to put things together using external sources, such as YouTube or just Google search. On the whole, it was very okay to follow, but it just didn't have that depth. What I produced for that client was a step-by-step coding guide with screenshots that they could give to the infrastructure team to get them on board. We had a good success rate that way, whereas if I had just sent them the Microsoft Docs link, I'm sure they would have had a few more questions.

That was the only use case I had experienced initial-setup-wise. The onboarding for group policy took maybe a month or two just because we had quite a big setup. We had different groups to roll it out to. We rolled it out to pilot devices, then 10 or 20 devices, then 100, and so on. It took about a month or two.

In terms of maintenance, from the service side, you rely on Microsoft to make sure it's available, secure, and things like that. Sometimes, you get downtime, and sometimes, you get bugs. For example, last year, a Chrome update was misclassified as malicious, which caused all the alerts. You then have to raise support cases to find out what happened. Eventually, Microsoft releases a fix, so in terms of maintenance, it's more on them. The only thing from your side is making sure, for example, the roles are still relevant. If someone who has access leaves, you need to make sure that their role is revoked. You need to make sure that you've got your role set up for the least privilege and things like that on an ongoing basis because there may be certain new features in the portal that have a corresponding role assignment. If you don't have that enabled or configured, then you're not going to get that benefit. That's the only thing needed from the maintenance perspective. You just need to make sure your roles are regularly reviewed and optimized when needed.

All I can say again is the E5 gives you all the capabilities that it offers. It also gives Office 365 and one terabyte of storage. All in all, the E5 license model makes sense. There are some people who say it's quite costly, but rather than paying different vendors, it makes sense to go all in with Microsoft if you've got that licensing. From that perspective, it's cost-effective, but I can't comment much on that.

To a security colleague who says it’s better to go with a best-of-breed strategy rather than a single vendor’s security suite, I would say that I'm slightly biased because I'm such a fan of the Microsoft suite. Some people do say that you shouldn't put eggs into one basket, and you're giving a lot of control to Microsoft and things like that. I would advise evaluating based on your needs. For example, for your endpoints, you might see much better value in CrowdStrike, Tanium, or something like that as compared to Defender for Endpoint.

You can do PoCs. Microsoft makes it quite easy. You can have the trials and things like that. You can play around and see which one supports your environment. I wouldn't say Microsoft is necessarily the option for all organizations, but I do think it's a very compelling offer. They're constantly evolving the product. They pay a lot of attention to consumer feedback. They've enterprise feedback as well to improve the product. I wouldn't completely rule out either option. If you've got one that's tried and tested for your enterprise, and that's a third party, you can see what Microsoft can offer. If it just doesn't match up, then stick to what you have even if it costs more because all in all, you may have tried and tested processes. You may have an investment in that product, and it may just have capabilities that the Microsoft one doesn't have. I would also encourage you to add a feature request for the Microsoft one, and then they'll be more on the equal side.

I would advise doing a PoC. If you are using Carbon Black, CrowdStrike, or Titanium, evaluate it. Have a sample host or spin up some VMs or onboard them to Defender. Do some simulations and do some attacks that you think are likely going to be. See how the logs look, see the investigation processes, and do a gap analysis with your current solution. If it brings you any value, then potentially look to deploy it further. Don't just go all in without understanding what it does. If you don't have any security solution right now, and you are a small business or a local business, it's worth doing the trial and seeing what value you get from the trial because, in that situation, you don't have anything to compare to. You are an easy customer to onboard from Microsoft's perspective because you wouldn't be that complex. So, do a trial and then go from there.

I would rate it an eight out of ten overall. I do really like the product. I do like the fact that it combines all the alerts into one. I remember when I was a security analyst back in 2019, I had to open multiple tabs and close alerts in one portal and then the other portal. They've done a good job of bi-directional syncing of alerts. If you're closing in 365 Defender, it'll close in the MCAS portal or cloud apps. Overall, the biggest thing for me was just advanced hunting capability because previously, it wasn't possible to get those cloud app events or Defender for Office events to do hunting. Endpoint was the first one to have that hunting capability, and I'm glad that they've extended that to the other stacks. So, overall, I would give it an eight, and I'm really impressed.

I'm using the solution for security.

Previously, we weren't using anything and now we can configure privileged access and rules. We now operate in a more secure environment. 

It's great that it's a cloud solution. You don't need to worry about physical hardware.

You can configure the product very easily. It's simple to implement and easy to run.

The XDR platform provides unified identity and access management.

We only use it to cover Microsoft products; it works really well. 

365 Defender stops lateral movement of advanced attacks, like ransomware or business email compromise. It protects us from spam and ransomware. 

So far, we haven't had any attacks. It also allows us to adapt to evolving threats. 

We use the solution's multi-tenant management capabilities. It's easy to access and helps with investigating and responding to threats across tenants. 

With Microsoft, we get multiple services under one platform.

With Defender, we've been able to reduce costs. We've likely saved around 25% in costs so far. We've also been able to save time - around 10% to 20%.

You can customize the product based on your requirements - and everything is available under one platform.

The solution can improve the rules and privileges it offers. They need to be more transparent with changes. Often, changes come too rapidly.

I've been using the solution for seven months. 

The solution is a stable product. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

It's scalable. I'd rate the ability to scale nine out of ten. You can scale according to your needs. 

Support is very good. 

Positive

I also use SentinelOne and Splunk. Microsoft Defender is easy to implement and is user-friendly. Splunk, however, is not user-friendly.

The deployment is easy.

We have 20 to 30 people working on the solution. 

There isn't really any maintenance needed. 

The pricing is reasonable. It's cheaper than other options. 

I'm a Microsoft customer. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I would recommend the solution to others.

We use Defender XDR to monitor our network. We use it for when we analyze email and check endpoints.  

XDR is our second solution. We have two. We have it in basic mode as an antivirus and as an XDR. We use the DLP in our company as well. We can look at threat intel for vulnerabilities, and we check to see if vulnerabilities are present within our environment. We do that through Defender. It's useful for threat hunting. 

We have it integrated with Sentinel and we manage our incidents from Sentinel. We can do a detailed analysis of what actually happened, and it gives us the ability to log in remotely on devices. For example, if you have a problem with your PC, one of my colleagues can take the file from the PC remotely. As long as you have permissions as an administrator you can do that. Otherwise, you can create an incident and escalate it to the right admin.

The file analysis is helpful. When we have phishing emails Microsoft itself can analyze the file in the sandbox and then give you a detailed report. It's helped us respond better and increased the security of our organization.

I like the attack graph of each incident. It's really handy, and there's a summary. For example, you can see what had happened with a timeline. And if you go to investigate, the evidence will be there, including the users and devices. Co-pilot is integrated there as well. With just one click, you have a summary of what to do and the next steps. For young analysts, it is quite helpful.

You can have security administrators or global administrators. You can set up different permission structures outside of Defender.

The solution's security extends or covers more than just Microsoft technologies. Linux machines can be used, for example. It is possible to install an agent for Linux so you can monitor also Linux machines.

Apart from having everything within the same console, you have alerts.

The attack disruption capabilities positively affect our security operations. We can integrate with third parties. If an email comes in with a file attached, Microsoft's intelligence would be able to tell if it's a phishing scam, and it can automate the deletion.

We do educate and train our users, however, it provides an extra security layer that catches suspect emails. It reduces the risk of users accidentally clicking on phishing emails. 

The solution adapts to evolving threats. It's a next-generation solution. The machine learning and AI are integrated. With the help of machine learning, it can block quite a bit of suspicious activity.

It offers multi-tenant capabilities. We have four different tenants, and for each, we have a different console, so I don't directly deal with multi-tenant capabilities; however, it is possible. 

We do use the solution with a variety of others. We haven't reduced the number of other products we use for security. However, it's quite handy. It blocks a lot of malicious attempts. Nothing really gets by it. The automatic incident response and protection have kept us very safe, even though we do have other backups there on offer as well. 

We've saved a lot of time with the automated detection. It reduces the time we need to respond and react. We've saved maybe 30% to 40% of the typical amount of time it would take, thanks to automation. For example, if there is, a phishing email goes to the XDR if we had to do an analysis and a report, that alone might take 20 minutes to an hour. Then, we have to remediate, delete and block. With automation, we can save those 20 minutes to an hour. The process is automatic, so we don't have to manually do it. Also, if you have a bunch of suspicious domains or IPs, it will take time to manually go through everything, one by one. However, we can automate the blocking process and save ourselves a lot of time. 

The AI could be improved. As an analyst, I want to be able to interact more with AI. The AI simply sends summaries. I can't ask it, for example, if it has seen any suspicious activity with device two. I have to go and check device two for myself.

I've used the solution for 15 months so far.

The solution is quite stable. I'd rate stability eight out of ten.

We have 15 to 16 people using the solution in my organization. Then we have users on various Microsoft accounts. There may be 50 or more users in total. We have the solution spread across multiple locations. 

It's a scalable product.

I've had colleagues mention that they were very pleased with Microsoft's support. Once you open a ticket, the response you get is usually within an hour or two. 

Positive

I do use different solutions. Microsoft is very good compared to other market leaders. It's a leader itself. I've used CrowdStrike, for example, and I'm familiar with Zscaler. 

My understanding is it is quite easy to deploy the solution. Between deploying the agent and the initial installation, it may take one to two hours. Then, of course, you have to customize the product. However, as a SaaS product, it's very easy to deploy. I'm not sure if any ongoing maintenance is needed after deployment. 

I don't have visibility into the pricing. However, Defender is included in the price of a larger bundle. As a Microsoft customer, it's my understanding that users can access discounts. 

I'm a Microsoft customer. 

I'd advise new users to try a proof of concept. Before the solution is implemented, figuring out the grouping will be very important. You'll want to implement policies based on groups, so they need to make sense. For example, it would be easy to create a structure based on departments.

I'd recommend the solution to others. Microsoft is quite handy. You can get a full overview of your vulnerabilities, which makes investigations easy.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I'm managing the SIEM, but the SIEM is heavily integrated with 365 Defender and all the other components. Defender is a natural extension of Sentinel, and our entire SOC team leverages the solution. We utilize it daily for everything related to incident response from an advanced threat-hunting perspective.

We do some KQL-based threat hunting and have set up some custom detections built into the platform, so we can raise an alert about a threat when we see it. Right now, we're onboarding our server environment to push Defender for server agents to see what that looks like. 

Defender is used widely by our SOC for everyday investigations. Our attack surface reduction teams use it for vulnerability information. Other teams at the company use the telemetry data, but it's primarily our SOC using it for incident response. 

Defender XDR has simplified our security operations because we don't need to shift around various portals. If I respond to an initial access event involving phishing emails, I can go to the endpoint and the user's identity in one console instead of having four or five different tabs open for multiple products. 

Since adopting Defender XDR, we haven't consolidated anything because the corporate leadership purchased the E5 license with all of Microsoft's other security solutions. All of those are still in play, but some of Defender's features are creeping into other spaces where it could potentially replace some of their products. 

It allows things like indicator blocking. You can block file caches now. You can block URLs, domains, etc. We might have handled that somewhere else with DNS and stuff like that. We might be blocking domains or adding different intelligence to handle that from the endpoint perspective so the threats are stopped before they get to the network. There are certain functions that Defender might not necessarily take over, but it can augment the entire approach to that security design. It could replace those solutions, but I'm not one to have all my eggs in one basket. However, that's not my decision to make.

Having everything in a single pane of glass saves some time, but it's hard to quantify. It reduces the time needed to respond. It correlates the data in a certain way that probably decreases time spent on manual data aggregation by about 30 minutes per incident. We can aggregate the logs from third-party solutions in Sentinel, run KQL queries there, and look at them together to make some assumptions. That's a significant time saving, but I don't think we're tracking that. 

The way it gathers data is fundamentally different. It's all right here, and I don't need to do separate queries. I can look through the timeline and export the data to a CSV if I want to sift through the data. It likely reduces the time it takes to respond dramatically. One problem we have internally is that we can't deploy Defender for Endpoint on everything. I can't deploy it on a many legacy OS due to the compatibility. It's challenging to address those things when you get so used to having all of this telemetry. When working through that, the advantages of using the platform become clear. It incentivizes us to stop using some of those assets because we can't see anything on them the same way that it gets represented in the M365D. We don't have direct telemetry ingestion into the cloud portal where we can collect logs from all those assets.

The most valuable feature is probably the aggregation and correlation of the different telemetry points with Defender for Identity, Defender for Endpoint, and Defender for Cloud Apps. All of these various things are part of that portal. We've wanted that single pane of glass for years. 

We've become early adopters of almost all of the features that they offer through the portal, so we've become good at working through the leading-edge quality of the new features and deciding whether or not we want to implement something in production based on that. We have a close relationship with Microsoft's team, and they present us with opportunities to enable new features, but all of the training is done internally. We have a close-knit team structured between our level two, level three and engineering team. And so we'll come together and say, "Here's this new thing we can do with Defender for Identity. We can reset users' passwords on-prem through the portal." We'll discuss these things and whether to implement them, but it's just our team.  

Defender provides unified identity and access management. There's probably some more granularity that could happen within the existing access control model. You can apply default labels for security admin and this or that. It depends on how you design it. A lot of our security admins can do at-will actions. We want them to be able to do anything else requiring an elevated set of privileges that allow you to design roles or stuff related to assets or identities. 

You have an audit trail for who's doing what, which is great. I think they could make the roles more granular. That would be ideal. Integrated identity and access management capabilities are core to the solution because you don't want people to have too much access. You want to control it to a point. We need people to be able to do what they need to, but I don't want everyone to have domain privileges because they can log into a domain controller through the portal. 

These are the kinds of things the portal lets you do, like the interactive sessions with Defender for Endpoint. However, I would like to see a just-in-time access approach that allows me to do something, and once I'm done with the action, it shuts off that capability.

Defender feels restricted to Microsoft products, but if we augment its capabilities with Sentinel, you can pull all your third-party data sources and everything into the SIEM. That immediately adds a different value to the product. Having some level of normalization on the data helps, but the ability to take data from third-party sources and correlate it with Microsoft sources is beneficial.

The solution stops the lateral movement of advanced threats like ransomware if you set it up correctly and are willing to accept the possibility of false positives on automated isolation, app restriction, etc. It entirely depends on what your team can do with rule tuning and use case detection. 

Our team does customized detections entirely based on what's happening in our environment. We have direct tuning capabilities.  We don't have an automated isolation-based task applied to out-of-the-box rules. That would be scary. We do our best to ensure false positives don't happen. If they do, we can control the outcome and make sure it can tune out the false positives. 

Defender can stop attacks and evolving threats because it can correlate data and make assumptions based on it. If you feed it all of your data, it will do an incredible job. It's dependent on your environment, but I think it does an excellent job of detecting perceived threats. At the same time, you still need a human being to monitor and tune it. 

The advanced threat-hunting capabilities are phenomenal, and the security copilot enhances that, but some data elements could be better or have more context inside of the advanced tables themselves. The schemas feel a little limited to what they're building into the product. It's probably just a maturity thing. I imagine we'll see the features I want in the next year.

Once you've onboarded your servers to Defender, they're housed on Azure. When those things are brought into the 365 Defender portal, I can see clearly that some of those are Azure resources. There is a subscription and the resource group. That data doesn't exist in the tables. We don't want to run automated remediation against our domain controllers, but you can't exclude those using Azure resource tags. You can't tell it to exclude assets from this resource group. 

That data doesn't exist inside the tables you use to build your thresholds or custom protections. I could see where they could improve the data they present to you in the tables. I assume that it will come with time. There's so much happening. Every time I open the portal, there's a new feature. 

We have used Microsoft Defender XDR since earlier this year and prior to this the Microsoft 365 Defender solution. We were early adopters of the platform and changes to the different products being integrated.

I rate Microsoft support seven out of 10. Sometimes, the support teams are great. However, sometimes we know more about the tool in some cases than the people we're talking to. We use it so heavily that our internal team has a better understanding of the toolset than the average SME should. We use it every day, so we live in the portal. I can't comment negatively or positively on the support. It depends. Sometimes, you might get somebody who knows what's going on, but in other cases, we have to figure out the solution on our own. 

The worst thing I can think of is when we need to reclassify a domain that they've called incorrectly. In that situation, you send a request into the abyss. you never get a response, and it's like, okay. Do I have to keep checking back over and over again to see if this has been reclassified? 

Neutral

We've experimented with other providers at this point, like Carbon Black. I think Defender meets the enterprise-grade criteria for our needs, but there are some nuanced differences between the solutions. 

I think it's hard to compare due to the sheer volume of the E5 ecosystem in one location. No other tools have that. If you bundle all the Microsoft solutions, it doesn't make sense to compare them to third-party solutions. Defender stands out in terms of gathering data and the way it presents everything in the incident timeline. The only thing it could do better is the filtering capabilities when you're pulling back the data from the timeline. 

Data is expensive if we want to leverage the telemetry that exists within the 365 ecosystem and bring that into Sentinel. I can't pipe that data in without paying an ingestion cost. I know how much data exists in each one of the tables that are there, and it would cost a significant amount of money to bring that in. 

I rate Microsoft Defender XDR 10 out of 10. I don't know of anybody else that's even remotely close to doing what they're doing. It's reduced my work in terms of identifying things. I might be in a position where I'm engineering, but I'm still technically on the response team. I'm using the tool the same way, and it has gotten better and better every time they add something new.