If your organisation runs mostly on Azure, the shortlist for cloud security posture usually comes down to two names: Palo Alto Networks' Prisma Cloud and Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Both find misconfigurations, both map risk to compliance standards, and both can show how an attacker could move through your environment. The right choice depends less on features and more on how many clouds you run, how big your security team is, and how much of your risk sits outside Azure infrastructure.
First, the names have changed
Two things trip up most comparisons:
- Azure Security Center is now Microsoft Defender for Cloud. Microsoft renamed it in 2021, so any comparison against "Azure Security Center" is really a comparison against Defender for Cloud.
- Prisma Cloud is now Cortex Cloud. In 2025 Palo Alto Networks merged Prisma Cloud with its Cortex cloud detection and response capabilities into a single platform, Cortex Cloud. Many teams still call it Prisma Cloud, and so does this article.
Microsoft Defender for Cloud
Defender for Cloud is built into Azure. Its posture management comes in two plans:
- Foundational CSPM (free): asset inventory, security recommendations, secure score and the Microsoft Cloud Security Benchmark across Azure, AWS and GCP.
- Defender CSPM (paid): adds attack path analysis, risk prioritisation, risk hunting with the cloud security explorer, agentless VM vulnerability and secrets scanning, data security posture, AI security posture and regulatory compliance assessments. Billing is per protected resource (virtual machines, storage accounts, databases and selected serverless workloads).
Where it is strong: it is already in your Azure portal, it switches on per subscription with no separate procurement, and the free tier gives every Azure team a baseline. For Azure-heavy teams, the depth of native signal is hard to beat.
Where teams hit limits: Defender for Cloud is focused on infrastructure and workloads. Microsoft 365 risk (external sharing in SharePoint and OneDrive, Entra ID sign-in risk, device posture) lives in other Microsoft portals, so someone still has to stitch the picture together. Costs also grow with resource count as you enable more paid plans.
Prisma Cloud (Cortex Cloud)
Prisma Cloud is a full cloud-native application protection platform (CNAPP). It covers posture management, cloud identity and entitlements, workload protection, infrastructure-as-code and CI/CD security, API security and cloud detection and response in one platform, across all major clouds.
Where it is strong: organisations running large, genuinely multi-cloud estates, with active development pipelines and a dedicated cloud security team, get one consistent policy model across AWS, Azure and GCP, plus code-to-cloud coverage.
Where teams hit limits: it is an enterprise platform with enterprise pricing and onboarding. Pricing is quote-based, full runtime coverage relies on deploying agents, and the breadth that suits a 50-person security team is often more than an Azure-first team of a few engineers will use. Like Defender for Cloud, it does not cover Microsoft 365 risk.
Side by side
- Best fit: Defender for Cloud suits Azure-first teams of any size. Prisma Cloud suits large multi-cloud estates.
- Clouds: Defender for Cloud covers Azure, AWS, GCP and on-premises through Azure Arc. Prisma Cloud covers AWS, Azure, GCP and others.
- Entry cost: Defender for Cloud has a free foundational tier. Prisma Cloud is quote-based.
- Attack path analysis: both (Defender for Cloud needs the paid Defender CSPM plan).
- Code and pipeline security: both. It is a core strength of Prisma Cloud and part of Defender CSPM through DevOps connectors.
- Agents: Defender for Cloud offers agentless scanning. Prisma Cloud relies on agents for full runtime coverage.
- Microsoft 365 risk: neither.
Which one fits a 10-engineer Azure team?
For a small team running mostly on Azure, Defender for Cloud is usually the more practical starting point. It is native, the free tier costs nothing to turn on, and Defender CSPM adds attack paths and risk prioritisation without a new vendor. Prisma Cloud earns its cost when you run significant workloads on several clouds, ship code through pipelines you need to secure, and have the people to operate a full CNAPP.
The question both tools leave open is the same: what about the risk that is not Azure infrastructure?
Where TENET fits
TENET does not replace Defender for Cloud. It reads Defender for Cloud signals as one of its sources, then puts them next to the risk neither tool above covers: Microsoft 365 data sharing, Entra ID identity risk, device posture and AI risk. Everything lands in one view, ranked by severity, exposure and blast radius, and mapped to NIS2 and NIST CSF 2.0 for compliance reporting.
It connects read-only through Microsoft APIs with no agents to deploy, and the paid plan costs one flat price: $174 a month billed annually, or $249 billed monthly.
If you are comparing TENET directly with Palo Alto's platform, see the full TENET vs Prisma Cloud comparison. To see your own Azure and Microsoft 365 risk first, run a free self-service assessment of your tenant.