M365 depth + audit-ready compliance. Free 14-day trial.
No changes to your tenant — read-only access only. Results in minutes.
Specialist depth versus platform breadth — here is how the two tools compare on the Microsoft surface.
| Capability | 365 Security Assessment | Falcon Shield |
|---|---|---|
| M365 rule depth | 24,000+ M365 rules | Subset of 3,500 checks across 200+ apps |
| Azure resource-plane coverage | Not the lead use case | |
| MITRE ATT&CK mapping | Not advertised on product page | |
| Compliance framework count | 10 frameworks | Not specified publicly |
| Agentless / read-only | ||
| Time to first results | Same-day after consent | Connect in minutes; enterprise sales cycle |
| MSP multi-tenant | Enterprise direct; Falcon-platform sale | |
| Public pricing / free tier |
Adaptive Shield is an SSPM pioneer and a genuinely strong platform for organizations managing a diverse SaaS portfolio. When you need one view across 200 applications, that breadth is the right engineering choice.
The trade-off is inherent to the model: when 3,500 checks are shared across 200+ apps, M365 and Azure each receive a fraction of that catalog. A Microsoft-specialist tool that evaluates nothing else can — and does — deploy orders of magnitude more rules against the same Microsoft surfaces.
For organizations where the primary regulatory and security risk lives in M365 and Azure, that depth difference matters at audit time. The two tools solve for different portfolio shapes.
Estimated Falcon Shield share is illustrative — exact per-app rule counts are not published. The principle: 3,500 checks across 200+ apps yields a thin layer per platform.
Per-finding framework citations
Every finding links to specific control IDs across all ten frameworks simultaneously. One gap, all regulatory contexts.
MITRE ATT&CK on critical issues
Critical findings include technique IDs so remediation teams understand what adversary playbook the gap enables.
Executive and technical layers
CISO-level summary and engineer-level detail in the same report. One deliverable, two audiences.
Continuous drift monitoring
Posture is re-evaluated continuously. Compliance evidence stays current between formal audits.
Falcon Shield's compliance posture is not explicitly detailed on the product page. Framework coverage count is unpublished, and MITRE ATT&CK mapping is not advertised as a per-rule feature.
365 Security Assessment maps findings to ten frameworks — GDPR, FedRAMP, HITRUST, NIST 800-53, CIS M365, SOC 2, ISO 27001, CMMC, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS — with MITRE ATT&CK technique IDs on critical issues. That output is the evidence package an auditor needs, not a dashboard to screenshot.
For organizations under multiple simultaneous regulatory regimes — healthcare providers with HIPAA and HITRUST, government contractors with FedRAMP and CMMC — that specificity closes the compliance reporting gap in one assessment run.
Adaptive Shield is now sold as part of the CrowdStrike Falcon platform. That creates real value for existing Falcon customers — unified console, shared telemetry, bundled licensing. It also means evaluation cycles align with Falcon enterprise procurement, not standalone SSPM.
365 Security Assessment is a standalone product with published pricing and a free tier. MSPs managing client tenants can onboard each tenant independently, see results the same day, and bill predictably — without negotiating a Falcon bundle every time.
For M365-anchored security teams and MSPs, that separation of buying motion from the Falcon platform is a practical advantage, not just a cost consideration.
365 Security Assessment is the right fit when...
Falcon Shield is the right fit when...
Compliance frameworks covered
Answers for buyers evaluating both platforms.
No agents, no tenant changes, no enterprise sales cycle. Free tier available. Results in minutes.
Read-only access — no changes to your tenant — results in under 10 minutes.