Amazon Web Services vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud

We are using RDS for the database services. With RDS, we don't have to manage much, as most of the DBA tasks are automated. For development purposes, we are using Kubernetes pods, which makes it easy to deploy applications and scale up as needed. AWS integration with in-house applications is seamless, making it easy to keep a data-sensitive application on-premises while still utilizing AWS services.

Incentivized

If you need to proceed with pay as you go service then go ahead with Microsoft Defender for Cloud. This could be expensive in the long run but if the organization usage is slightly less than then this would suite the purpose. Also, it has the latest threat updates, so you're future proof in terms of potential treats.

Incentivized

• Starting an instance and accessing it for testing purpose, demo or production deployment its always easy.
• All the things which are available over AWS are pretty well managed and easy to use.
• You might find everything you required for an product and other development over AWS.
• Its suitable for both either an enterprise or an startup
• Various resources and documentation are available in case you struck somewhere.

Incentivized

• Automation is crucial to managing sprawl and the additional complexity that comes with it. SOC management workbooks and process automation give significant flexibility.
• The Security posture score and Security Alerts are neatly centralized and offer me crucial information quickly.
• Defender for Cloud avoids the common compromise of simplicity for completeness (former Azure Security Center). The security warnings and advice go into great detail while remaining current and useful.

Incentivized

• The AWS Management Console can be overwhelming. so a better dashboard and organizing it would improve usability.
• The pricing models are complex. We need a more clear price calculators and cost management tools to manage our expenses better.
• Enhancements in cross service compatibility and easier third party integrations could streamline workflow.
• Simplifying model training in SageMaker and improving IAM for granular access control would make AWS more user friendly

Incentivized

• UI/UX. It can get a little messy when navigating around with all the flyouts in the Azure portal which can be frustrating, particularly when under time pressure.
• The query languages for the queries and workbooks are another language that needs to be learned - it would be nice to have kept it closer to T-SQL or something like that to minimize the need to learn new syntax.
• Adding cost estimations to the security recommendations would really improve the experience.

Incentivized

I would gladly rely on AWS for any large-scale application deployment. For prototyping and small-scale applications, a more heavily managed environment on top of the 'bare metal' virtual infrastructure, such as Heroku or Elastic Bean Stalk, is probably a more productive approach in most cases

It is a great product that integrates nicely when running an Azure platform and even multi-cloud environment. Not looking for point-solutions but a suite that answers most requirements. It is very comfortable being able to use KQL, workbooks and automation that is native to the azure platform

Amazon Web Services is a great tool when it comes to middle size organizations like us. It provides multiple tools and functionalities in low costs. The best feature we have to pay as we go. No financial burden on company for the unused instances. It also comes with greater level of security such as two level authorization such as multi factor authorization.

Compliance mapping capabilities of the software and reporting.

Ease in deployment and implementation.

Seamless integration of the software with cloud and other third party applications.

The software ensures quick incident response and avilability of ready to help customer services providers.

User interface of the product is very friendly.

Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.

AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.

The customer support of Amazon Web Services are quick in their responses. I appreciate its entire team, which works amazingly, and provides professional support. AWS is a great tool, indeed, to provide customers a suitable way to
immediately search for their compatible software's and also to guide them in a
good direction. Moreover, this product is a good suggestion for every type of
company because of its affordability and ease of use.

Incentivized

The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.

In my personal experience, AWS is superior to both GCP and Azure in the majority of usable applications. GCP suffers from the near total misunderstanding of how support system is even supposed to work, and while _some_ services are pretty nifty and well-polished, some are mindbogglingly designed black boxes with self-conflicting documentation. Some of it comes from having legacy systems, sure, but AWS somehow manages, even having a rather big lead start. Azure, from my limited experience, is limited to people somehow coerced into its usage by external constraints. That being said, IF you can design and implement something there, it will probably run fine.

Incentivized

I believe Microsoft Defender for Cloud stacks up well against the other tools we looked at. It is native to the Azure platform and provides the same insights as the other tools. We selected Microsoft Defender for Cloud because it integrates well with the Azure resources and gives the needed insight, security alerts and recommendations.

Incentivized

• Provisioning resources like large database instances is really quick. We can easily scale our instances up or down as per need.
• Storing files in S3 instead of onprem NAS drives is much more economical, especially for the files stored in glacier deep archive for compliance purposes.
• Backup snapshots of EBS volumes and RDS instances may increase the cost of cloud if not cleaned up properly.

Incentivized

• Ensuring compliance with data protection regulations can prevent costly fines and legal issues, positively impacting ROI.
• Effective cloud resource protection can optimize cloud spending and resource utilization, ultimately reducing cloud infrastructure costs.
• The subscription costs associated with Defender for Cloud can add to an organization's operational expenses, impacting ROI.
• Smaller organizations may find the feature set and complexity of Defender for Cloud unnecessary, potentially overinvesting in security solutions.

Incentivized