Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Google Cloud Security Command Center vs Microsoft Defender for Cloud comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jul 13, 2025

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

SentinelOne Singularity Clo...
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
3rd
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
114
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (5th), Cloud and Data Center Security (3rd), Container Security (3rd), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (4th), Compliance Management (1st)
Google Cloud Security Comma...
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
24th
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
18th
Average Rating
7.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Ranking in Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
4th
Ranking in Cloud-Native Application Protection Platforms (CNAPP)
4th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
78
Ranking in other categories
Vulnerability Management (7th), Container Management (8th), Container Security (7th), Cloud Workload Protection Platforms (CWPP) (2nd), Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) (5th), Microsoft Security Suite (7th), Compliance Management (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) category, the mindshare of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is 3.0%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Cloud Security Command Center is 2.0%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Defender for Cloud is 9.7%, down from 11.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM)
 

Featured Reviews

Andrew W - PeerSpot reviewer
Tells us about vulnerabilities as well as their impact and helps to focus on real issues
Looking at all the different pieces, it has got everything we need. Some of the pieces we do not even use. For example, we do not have Kubernetes Security. We are not running any K8 clusters, so it is good for us. Overall, we find the solution to be fantastic. There can be additional education components. This may not be truly fair to them because of what the product is going for, but it would be great to see additional education for compliance. It is not a criticism of the tool per se, but anything to help non-development resources understand some of the complexities of the cloud is always appreciated. Any additional educational resources are always helpful for security teams, especially those without a development background.
Nishant_Mishra - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides visibility, address cloud misconfiguration and prevent threats
In terms of identifying, the solution is pretty good. It takes care of all the layers. We have Cloud, Kubernetes cluster, instances running, and network. We have identities, permissions, and access. It provides pictures of everything in GCP. There's no such integration required. There are Google APIs that you need to enable. The compliance reporting feature helped us maintain a baseline of compliance within the information security policies. It's pretty stable and scalable. However, visibility can be improved along with automation. SCC to provide an option to fix those things, perhaps by clicking a button. For example, if a firewall rule allows an application to accept HTTP traffic, I should be able to address that specific issue directly within the interface. It's just a regular call to action button. There are no prerequisites for the solution. It's a requirement to have good security visibility into your Google Cloud Infrastructure. Cloud Security Command Center could be a good product to consider. There are other open-source solutions available. There are solutions from Aqua that are pretty decent. I would recommend that if somebody is opting for SCC, they should also explore open-source solutions. Open-source solutions can be very beneficial, especially if they are pursuing a multi-cloud strategy. You won't need additional security tools for platforms like AWS or others. Whenever a security issue pops up, a generative AI backend provides a summary of what happened. The information provided is quite detailed. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Vibhor Goel - PeerSpot reviewer
A single tool for complete visibility and addressing security gaps
Currently, issues are structured in Microsoft Defender for Cloud at severity levels of high, critical, or warning, but these severity levels are not always right. For example, Microsoft might consider a port being open as critical, but that might not be the case for our company. Similarly, it might suggest closing some management ports, but you might need them to be able to log in, so the severity levels for certain things can be improved. Even though Microsoft Defender for Cloud provides a way to temporarily disable certain alerts or notifications without affecting our security score, it would be better to have more granularized control over these recommendations. Currently, we cannot even disable certain alerts or notifications. There should be an automated mechanism to design Azure policies based on the recommendations, possibly with AI integration. Instead of an engineer having to write a policy to fix security gaps, which is very time-consuming, there should be an inbuilt capability to auto-remediate everything and have proper control in place. Additionally, enabling Defender for Cloud at the resource group level, rather than only at the subscription level, would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It saves us time based on savings on manual activities."
"We noted immediate benefits from using the solution."
"We liked the search bar in SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security. It is a global search. We were able to get some insights from there."
"The most valuable feature of SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is its integration with most of our technology stack, specifically all of our cloud platforms and ticketing software."
"For Singularity, the task capability is easy to use and it has a very intuitive dashboard, which streamlines the processes."
"Its performance impact on the systems is low, which means there is a minimal impact on system performance compared to traditional antivirus solutions."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security's graph explorer is a valuable tool that lets us visualize all connected services."
"Cloud Native Security offers attack path analysis."
"The compliance reporting feature helped us maintain a baseline of compliance within the information security policies."
"Most people use the threat detection dashboard."
"It simplifies compliance efforts."
"Scalability is great, and I would rate it a ten out of ten."
"I've seen benefits since implementing Microsoft Defender for Cloud. It's easy to manage for our large organization as an endpoint security solution. It integrates well with Office 365 and Windows 11, which is better than before. Patching, updates, and threat protection are all handled together now. Its AI features help predict threats."
"We saw improvement from a regulatory compliance perspective due to having a single dashboard."
"The pricing is good."
"Defender for Cloud provides a complete DevOps security package for cloud services."
"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 security policy is the most valuable feature for us. We can go into the environment settings and attach any globally recognized framework like ISO or any benchmark."
"Threat protection is comprehensive and simple."
 

Cons

"With Cloud Native Security, we can't selectively enable or disable alerts based on our specific use case."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is an excellent CSSPM tool, but the CSC CWPP features need improvement."
"I used to work on AWS. At times, I would generate a normal bug in my system, and then I would check SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security. The alert used to come after about three and a half hours. It used to take that long to generate the alert about the vulnerability in my system. If a hacker attacks a system and SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security takes three to four hours to generate an alert, it will not be beneficial for the company. It would be helpful if we get the alert in five to ten minutes."
"I would like to see the map feature improve. It's good, but it isn't fully developed. It lets us use custom resources and policies but does not allow us to perform some actions. I would also like more custom integration and runtime security for Kubernetes."
"There should be more documentation about the product."
"We can customize security policies but lack auditing capabilities."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is an excellent CSPM tool, but its CWPP features need improvement, and there is scope for more application security posture management features."
"The Kubernetes scanning on the Oracle Cloud needs to be improved. It's on the roadmap. AWS has this capability, but it's unavailable for Oracle Cloud."
"The AI capabilities have been heavily promoted, but I haven't seen a significant impact."
"Visibility can be improved along with automation."
"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 could be improved, as it is somewhat high for smaller companies."
"I would rate Microsoft Defender for Cloud a six out of 10 due to its lack of necessary features to operate as a standalone solution."
"However, some Copilot features aren't available in the GCP environment. This is something we hope will be addressed in the future."
"I recommend that they extend the scope for legacy infra assets."
"Features like code scanning and pipeline scanning are not included in the solution."
"The remediation process could be improved."
"The product was a bit complex to set up earlier, however, it is a bit streamlined now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"PingSafe falls somewhere in the middle price range, neither particularly cheap nor expensive."
"It was reasonable pricing for me."
"The pricing is somewhat high compared to other market tools."
"SentinelOne Singularity Cloud Security is on the costlier side."
"Its pricing is okay. It is in line with what other providers were providing. It is not cheap. It is not expensive."
"We have an enterprise license. It is affordable. I'm not sure, but I think we pay 150,000 rupees per month."
"Its pricing was a little less than other providers."
"It's a fair price for what you get. We are happy with the price as it stands."
"Initially, it used to be relatively expensive, starting at around four or five hundred dollars."
"While we pay for any additional features, the pricing seems competitive, though I am not involved in the specific cost details."
"It is bundled with our enterprise subscription, which makes it easy to go for it. It is available by default, and there is no extra cost for using the standard features."
"We only use the free tier, so we haven't faced any pricing, setup costs, or licensing challenges."
"We are using the free version of the Azure Security Center."
"There are two different plans. We're using the secure basic plan, but we have used the end security plan as well. There are additional costs, but it gives us more functionalities compared to the basic plan."
"The licensing cost per server is $15 per month."
"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."
"Security Center charges $15 per resource for any workload that you onboard into it. They charge per VM or per data-base server or per application. It's not like Microsoft 365 licensing, where there are levels like E3 and E5. Security Center is pretty straightforward."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Security Posture Management (CSPM) solutions are best for your needs.
862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Retailer
7%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about PingSafe?
The dashboard gives me an overview of all the things happening in the product, making it one of the tool's best featu...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PingSafe?
I don't handle the price part, but it isn't more expensive than Palo Alto Prisma Cloud. It's not cheap, but it is wor...
What needs improvement with PingSafe?
There is scope for more application security posture management features. Additionally, the runtime protection needs ...
What do you like most about Google Cloud Security Command Center?
The compliance reporting feature helped us maintain a baseline of compliance within the information security policies.
What is your primary use case for Google Cloud Security Command Center?
The primary use case is to monitor the Google Cloud infrastructure across all projects for security-related alerts. T...
How is Prisma Cloud vs Azure Security Center for security?
Azure Security Center is very easy to use, integrates well, and gives very good visibility on what is happening acros...
What do you like most about Microsoft Defender for Cloud?
The entire Defender Suite is tightly coupled, integrated, and collaborative.
 

Also Known As

PingSafe
No data available
Microsoft Azure Security Center, Azure Security Center, Microsoft ASC, Azure Defender
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Information Not Available
Microsoft Defender for Cloud is trusted by companies such as ASOS, Vatenfall, SWC Technology Partners, and more.
Find out what your peers are saying about Google Cloud Security Command Center vs. Microsoft Defender for Cloud and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
862,514 professionals have used our research since 2012.