In current GigaOm analysis, we evaluated whether or not there was a very good argument to make use of a single safety accomplice to guard a corporation or if a number of “better of breed” options are nonetheless the best way to go.

We checked out two use instances. Microsoft, utilizing the broad capabilities of its M365 E3 platform with its E5 safety add-on, in comparison with deciding on particular person options from a number of main enterprise safety distributors, together with Crowdstrike, OKTA and Proofpoint.

The analysis consisted of price evaluation, technical comparisons, and conversations with senior IT decision-makers to grasp among the standards they used when evaluating know-how.

Our evaluation confirmed that technically and commercially, Microsoft’s instruments and providers provide a gorgeous single-vendor proposition. Nonetheless, it additionally uncovered that, whereas this was the case, there was additionally a pervading perspective from numerous CxOs, that not solely was Microsoft not their major selection, however for some, they might not even think about Microsoft as a safety accomplice.

That raised the query as as to whether Microsoft did, in truth, current a robust sufficient proposition to be a single safety accomplice for an enterprise and whether or not it was doable to beat the considerations of CxOs. To aim to reply these questions, we needed to evaluate our analysis and convey a contemporary CxO perspective to it. To do this, we enrolled our personal CTO, Howard Holton, to offer further CxO perception into the outcomes of our work.

The analysis round Microsoft as a safety accomplice

The purpose of this publish is to not share all of the analysis. It’s to offer a abstract of our findings which will help reply among the questions decision-makers would ask when evaluating a single-vendor versus multi-vendor method for cybersecurity instruments and providers.

Analysis scope

Earlier than offering that abstract, it’s helpful to stipulate the scope of our analysis. You will need to observe that this was not a hands-on technical analysis, detailed performance testing, or TCO evaluation. The scope of the analysis was to offer a C-level briefing that appeared on the following;

• Answer capabilities
• Excessive-level price evaluation
• Different operational overhead/enterprise dangers

We evaluated these areas to grasp whether or not the single-vendor versus multi-vendor method might;

• Scale back complexity
• Scale back price 
• Preserve/improve safety

We utilized these questions throughout a number of enterprise safety challenges. The Microsoft E5 Safety Add-on covers every of those areas, and we in contrast that to the seller listed in every class;

• Endpoint together with cell – Crowdstrike
• Identification Administration – Okta
• E mail Safety together with BEC, phishing safety, virus, and malware protection – Proofpoint
• MFA and adaptive entry controls – Okta/Proofpoint
• Instruments to watch risk and failure – Crowdstrike
• Information Loss Prevention and Related Information Safety Applied sciences – Proofpoint
• Cloud Software Safety/Cloud Entry Service Dealer – Proofpoint

These areas precisely replicate the important thing safety focus we discover in all kinds of organizations. Due to this fact, evaluating the potential of any device in opposition to them was a helpful approach to examine options and functionality, their price, and whether or not they would meet the wants of a corporation’s trendy safety calls for.

The professionals and cons of Microsoft as a safety accomplice

Microsoft’s E3 + E5 Safety add-on gives a complete vary of safety instruments for customers of its Microsoft 365 and Azure providers. Its breadth of functionality would supply a corporation with wide-reaching safety and complete safety by a single vendor.

The Microsoft Safety Toolset

Microsoft’s safety protection is broad and cut up throughout numerous core service suites. This consists of;

• Microsoft Defender for EDR, anti-virus, Cloud App safety, anti-phishing, and information loss prevention throughout desktop, server, Mac, cell, and naturally, Cloud
• Microsoft Entra supplies identification safety
• Change On-line Safety defends in opposition to phishing and BEC and gives malware safety

This vary of safety instruments is tightly built-in into Microsoft Azure and M365 to offer prospects with a complete, seamless safety expertise. For these prospects, the analysis highlighted that the one vendor, single platform method reduces each technical and business complexity, making a compelling safety providing.

Why have been CxO’s not embracing Microsoft’s compelling providing?

Whereas Microsoft did make a robust single-vendor case, why did potential prospects and their safety decision-makers meet this with the view that “Microsoft is just not even a consideration” when evaluating safety options and companions?

Causes for not selecting Microsoft

What have been among the key causes we found?

• I don’t wish to spend much more with Microsoft.
• Whereas the options are broad, I don’t consider their capabilities are nearly as good as specialist distributors.
• I don’t want all my safety eggs in a single basket.
• The pricing of migration from my present suppliers is critical.
• Can they supply me with hands-on risk response help?
• Is their risk response device one thing I might reclaim through my cyber insurance coverage?

Are these legitimate considerations?

Whereas all considerations are legitimate throughout our analysis, we discovered proof that might be used to assist reply a few of them. This doesn’t imply the considerations are fallacious, however they supply further context which will alter a possible buyer’s notion.

I don’t wish to spend extra with Microsoft

There are good business the explanation why this can be the case. We did additionally discover that there was a really sturdy monetary case made for the single-vendor method.

Based mostly on revealed pricing, our analysis noticed potential financial savings near 80% when utilizing the Microsoft E5 safety add-on in comparison with utilizing three particular person distributors*. Whereas there could also be business causes to not spend extra with Microsoft, it is a important determine, and one that ought to make for nearer examination, particularly the place budgets are below ever-increasing strain.

Microsoft’s capabilities are not so good as specialist distributors

This can be a complicated query, and because the analysis was not primarily based on performance testing, it was not definitively answered right here. Nonetheless, we have now present in different GigaOm analysis that Microsoft’s capabilities rating extremely in our security-based experiences.

It also needs to be thought of that the single-vendor method will scale back the complexity that a number of distributors can create. We additionally found that Microsoft’s E5 method is extraordinarily complete and stuffed gaps that have been left by the a number of main distributors we additionally evaluated.

I don’t want a single vendor

The worth of utilizing a number of best-of-breed distributors has benefits. To grasp if that may be a legitimate concern in any given occasion, you will need to perceive why the multi-vendor method is most popular and what it gives {that a} single vendor can not. We discovered Microsoft’s method technically and commercially enticing. Our findings definitely made a case for the re-appraisal of the one vendor method in these cases.

Price of migration

This can be a sturdy and legitimate concern. As IT budgets stay strained, migration prices could deliver unwelcome further strain. This could not imply it shouldn’t be thought of, as there are probably long-term financial savings available. Nonetheless, organizations ought to research the size of this return to determine its viability.

Risk response and cyber insurance coverage

One of many main questions raised when evaluating Microsoft with different main distributors was its functionality to offer risk response if a cyber incident ought to happen. Whereas Microsoft can certainly cowl risk response, we discovered service definitions and prices much less clear throughout our analysis than these of opponents equivalent to Crowdstrike.

An extra concern was whether or not they  could be coated below cyber insurance coverage when participating in such providers. Each considerations are important and would require full readability when evaluating adopting or altering or single safety vendor method.

What have been the three key benefits we found?

In exploring this with GigaOm’s CTO Howard Holton, we found a number of key benefits of the one vendor method that the diligent tech evaluator ought to think about. None of this stuff is to say Microsoft or any single vendor is the fitting reply, however there’s a case to discover, and as Howard talked about on the finish of our analysis, “at the very least we’d have Microsoft within the dialog”.

• Price discount: the potential right here is critical. Whereas it ought to by no means be the principle criterion, it’s a consideration in a world of under-pressure budgets. Our comparability of Microsoft’s E3/E5 Add-on versus an amalgamated main vendor method confirmed potential financial savings within the area of 80%*. In fact, in the actual world, prospects are unlikely to pay full revealed costs, however the saving potential does exist and have to be thought of.
• Complexity discount: Complexity is the enemy of safety. The extra merchandise a corporation tries to deliver collectively, the extra complicated it turns into to safe, the upper the operational overhead, and the extra seemingly there will probably be safety gaps. Microsoft is extraordinarily sturdy right here, if not excellent. Their options are managed from its single M365 platform however not essentially in a single console. It supplies consistency of safety coverage and process throughout the platform. And, in fact, the breadth of the platform ensures detailed insights and analytics from throughout a corporation are made out there to assist with risk investigation and looking. That is additionally augmented by each automated incident response and, extra lately, the additions of managed response through Microsoft Safety Consultants. This isn’t unattainable to realize with third-party distributors, particularly those we checked out right here, who share a variety of tight product integrations that share intelligence to offer broad safety insights, however it does take further work.
• Improved Safety: This one is much less clear. There isn’t any doubt that the breadth of protection and capabilities Microsoft supplies can definitely assist enhance safety posture, particularly for these utilizing E5 to fill present gaps. The E5 license gives a robust resolution, particularly for these deeply invested in Microsoft’s cloud platforms. Nonetheless, it’s much less clear whether or not these already invested in different instruments would see the identical enhancements. Whereas in some instances, Microsoft will ship parity and even function enchancment, there will probably be many instances the place best-of-breed opponents do issues Microsoft doesn’t. Safety have to be the principle criterion in these instances, no matter potential price financial savings.

Ultimate ideas

In reply to the query we posed on this publish, the reply is sure, Microsoft might be a single safety supplier for a corporation. Nonetheless, not for all. Whereas it supplies strong safety capabilities at a really enticing worth, there are gaps. In actuality, Microsoft’s method is simply going to be efficient for these with a robust funding and strategic dedication to Microsoft Azure and M365 already.

There, in fact, would be the comparability of capabilities. Specialist distributors are, on the very least, perceived to offer “higher” safety capabilities than Microsoft’s native instruments and, in lots of instances, present issues Microsoft don’t. The concept Microsoft supplies “ok” safety is true, however it shouldn’t have unfavourable connotations. Ok safety is precisely that, ok to satisfy wants. Nonetheless, organizations should completely consider whether or not any potential options meet their wants.

More and more organizations additionally want providers to reinforce their inside sources. Distributors like Crowdstrike provide complete skilled providers with risk and incident response groups. Microsoft does provide this, however the full route of its Safety Consultants service and the way that may examine is unclear. This will probably be an important consideration.

This analysis confirmed us {that a} single vendor, particularly Microsoft, could make a robust case when it comes to functionality, efficacy and price. They may both develop into a single vendor filling safety portfolio gaps, and even substitute different distributors in some cases.

Nonetheless, we additionally famous that best-of-breed market-leading options are perceived as that for a motive, and that price alone should not be the one criterion for changing them. 

What was definitely true for individuals who take the time to completely consider Microsoft’s capabilities, as our CTO Howard Holton identified, it ought to at the very least make Microsoft a part of the dialogue.

Observe

*Our worth comparisons have been primarily based on a 5000-user enterprise, 10,000 gadgets evaluating M365 E3 plus E5 safety versus Crowdstrike, Okta and Proofpoint as a part of Crowdstrike’s Spectra Alliance offering the identical safety protection. Based mostly on revealed record worth comparisons, analysis confirmed a 77% saving utilizing Microsoft’s instruments in comparison with an built-in method utilizing the three main distributors confirmed.

This didn’t embrace any discount in operational price, as this was outdoors of the scope of this analysis. Nonetheless, it must be famous that in earlier analysis, wanting on the impression of safety device consolidation, we have now seen reductions in operational prices of 3-7 instances.