Microsoft 365 is the backbone of work for many SMEs. Email, files, calendars, Teams conversations, and customer collaboration all operate within the same environment. As a result, even the compromise of a single user account can quickly affect the entire business.
Microsoft 365 includes powerful security features, but deploying, monitoring, and interpreting them is not always easy for an SME. This guide explains what to assess when choosing an M365 security solution in 2026 – and when a separate monitoring and risk management tool can complement Microsoft's own security features.
The security level of Microsoft 365 depends on the licences in use, the features that have been deployed, and how the environment is managed. The basic services provide, for example, protection against spam and malicious content, but comprehensive protection usually also requires management of identities, permissions, sharing, and sign-ins.
In a Microsoft 365 environment, you should at least review multi-factor authentication (MFA), Conditional Access policies, email security, external sharing settings, application permissions, and sign-in monitoring.
Microsoft's own tools may be sufficient if the organisation has the time, expertise, and processes needed to manage them continuously. For many SMEs, however, the challenge is not a lack of features but the absence of a clear overall view of the current state and the most important areas to fix.
A separate solution is not automatically necessary for every company. It can nevertheless complement Microsoft's own tools if the company needs continuous visibility and help interpreting findings.
A separate solution can be useful, for example, when:
A separate monitoring or risk management solution does not replace email protection, endpoint protection, log management, backups, or security operations services. First, define the problem you want the solution to solve.
Microsoft Secure Score is a useful tool for monitoring the security level and its development over time. It provides recommendations and helps identify which settings can improve protection.
Secure Score alone does not, however, tell you which finding is most urgent for your particular company, how the risk affects the business, or who should implement the fix. In addition, not all recommendations are equally relevant to every organisation.
A separate security tool, such as Vahti.ai, can complement Secure Score by bringing findings together, prioritising them from the company's perspective, and clearly describing the next steps. The goal is not to replace Microsoft's tools but to make the information they provide easier to use.
Solutions should be compared against criteria defined in advance. The number of features alone does not tell you whether a solution fits the company's day-to-day work.
| Criterion | What should you ask? |
|---|---|
| Coverage | Which Microsoft 365 risks does the solution detect, and what does it not cover? |
| Prioritisation | How does the solution help you decide which finding to address first? |
| Remediation | Does the user receive concrete guidance or only a notification that there is a problem? |
| Continuous monitoring | Are new risks and configuration changes visible after onboarding as well? |
| Permissions | Are read or write permissions required, and are the permissions limited to what is necessary? |
| Data protection | What data is processed, where is it stored, and how is data deletion handled? |
| Onboarding | How quickly is the first security overview available, and what is required from the customer? |
| Collaboration | Can findings be shared with management or the IT partner without extra work? |
| Pricing | Is pricing based on users, the tenant, features, or something else? |
| Limitations | What falls outside the solution's scope, and when are other tools needed? |
A security solution should fit the people responsible for managing the environment in their day-to-day work. If understanding the findings requires deep Entra ID, Exchange, or SharePoint expertise, the solution may not provide enough practical value to the company.
A good solution clearly explains what has been detected in the environment, why it matters, and what the next sensible action is.
A simple “risk detected” notification leaves the interpretation work to the customer. Assess whether the tool directs you to the correct administration portal, explains the necessary scope and exceptions, and helps verify that the remediation has been completed.
If remediation requires an IT partner, the guidance should be easy to forward as it is. This reduces investigation work and misunderstandings.
Not all findings are equally urgent. A good solution helps distinguish, for example, between insufficient protection for an administrator account, an individual low-impact configuration issue, and a situation where company files are being shared unnecessarily with external parties.
Prioritisation should be based on the detected state, its potential impact, and the available evidence. If information is missing, the uncertainty should be made explicit rather than automatically interpreted as safe or dangerous.
Onboarding should be lightweight enough for the company to obtain an initial security overview quickly. At the same time, find out what happens after onboarding: are findings updated automatically, how are changes shown, and how can remediation be verified?
A one-time check is not enough in an environment where users, devices, applications, and permissions change continuously.
Assess which permissions the solution needs and why. In many cases, read-only permissions are sufficient. You should also check that the service uses Microsoft's official APIs.
The solution's coverage should be assessed based on how your company operates. The risks below are common, but their significance varies depending on the organisation, its users, and the information it handles.
Phishing can lead to credentials being disclosed, a malicious file being opened, or a user approving a sign-in initiated by an attacker. The message may appear to come from a customer, business partner, or the company's own IT support.
An M365 security solution should at least review email security settings and identify configurations that increase the risk of message spoofing or user deception. This may include SPF, DKIM, and DMARC settings, but their significance should be assessed as part of the broader email security setup.
The compromise of a single user account can open access to emails, files, and internal company information. The risk is particularly significant for administrators, management, finance staff, and other users whose accounts can be used to make decisions or send convincing messages.
The solution should help detect, for example, sign-ins from new locations, unusual devices, or unfamiliar applications. A single anomaly does not prove a breach, but it may warrant further investigation.
SharePoint and OneDrive make collaboration easy, but overly broad sharing permissions can expose files unnecessarily to external parties.
Assess whether the solution can identify external shares, public links, and other situations where information is available more broadly than the business requires. The finding should help distinguish approved collaboration from genuinely unnecessary sharing.
Applications connected to a Microsoft 365 account may gain access to user or organisational data. Unnecessary or overly broad permissions increase risk, especially when the ownership and lifecycle of an application are unclear.
Choose a solution that helps you see application permissions and identify situations where access is broader than the stated purpose requires.
Multi-factor authentication alone does not address every identity risk. Conditional Access policies, legacy authentication methods, administrator account protection, and the use of unmanaged devices also affect the overall security posture.
A good solution helps identify where protection is missing or too narrowly scoped. It should also make clear when Microsoft's APIs do not provide sufficient visibility to verify the situation.
Multi-factor authentication (MFA) strengthens account protection by requiring a second form of verification in addition to a password. It is one of the most important measures an SME can implement.
MFA does not eliminate the need for other protections. For example, a user may be tricked into approving a sign-in on Microsoft's genuine website, or an attacker may exploit overly broad permissions and inadequate sign-in monitoring.
Conditional Access policies define the conditions under which a user can access information. A policy can, for example, require MFA in certain situations, restrict sign-ins from risky locations, or block access from unmanaged devices.
When evaluating solutions, find out whether they help identify gaps in MFA and Conditional Access and explain their impact. Policies should not be enabled blindly, because overly strict restrictions can also block legitimate work.
Find out what data the service reads from the Microsoft 365 environment, what data it stores, and how long it retains it. Also check where the data is processed and whether it is stored within the EU.
A reliable provider should explain its data processing, subprocessors, security measures, and data deletion practices clearly.
The requested permissions should match the service's actual purpose. If necessary, ask why each permission is required and whether the functionality could be provided with more limited permissions.
Vahti.ai uses Microsoft's official APIs and operates with read-only permissions for the features it supports. Read-only access does not mean that the data being processed cannot be sensitive. The scope of the permissions and the way data is handled should therefore also be assessed.
A good solution provides a clear onboarding process, documentation, and support when needed. Find out who can help if the connection cannot be established, a finding is unclear, or remediation requires familiarity with a Microsoft 365 administration portal.
A free trial can be a useful way to assess whether the solution produces findings that are understandable and useful in your own environment.
Find out which Microsoft 365 licences you use and which security features are enabled. At a minimum, review MFA, Conditional Access, email security, external sharing, application permissions, and sign-in monitoring.
Also document who is responsible for findings and remediation. If responsibilities have not been defined, even the best tool will not solve the problem on its own.
Decide whether you want to improve visibility into settings, monitor changes, receive prioritised remediation guidance, or support the work of your IT partner. Also define what the solution must not do.
Consider the requirements arising from your industry, customer agreements, and the processing of personal data. If necessary, involve a data protection or IT specialist in the assessment.
Compare Microsoft's own tools, services provided by an IT partner, and separate solutions using the same criteria. In addition to features, assess onboarding work, ongoing maintenance, responsibilities, and total cost.
During the trial, check whether the findings are understandable, based on visible evidence, and useful for deciding on the next action. Also assess whether reports can be shared with management or the IT partner.
Before making a decision, agree who will review the findings, how urgent anomalies will be handled, and how often remediation will be checked. Security is an ongoing process, not a one-time onboarding project.
Vahti.ai complements Microsoft 365's built-in security features by bringing key user, sign-in, and sharing risks into a single view.
The service helps identify, for example, incomplete sign-in protections, unusual activity, overly broad sharing permissions, and risky application permissions, to the extent that Microsoft's APIs provide the necessary data.
Findings are prioritised and described in practical language. This helps an SME understand what requires attention first and, when necessary, pass the remediation work to its IT partner.
Vahti.ai does not replace email protection, endpoint protection, log management, backups, or security operations services. Its role is to help the organisation understand the security posture of its Microsoft 365 environment and identify the most important issues to fix.
Pricing models vary between solutions. Costs may be based on the number of users, the tenant, features, implementation work, or an IT partner's broader service package.
In addition to the monthly price, compare onboarding, reporting, support, and remediation tracking. An inexpensive tool can become costly if the customer is left to interpret and handle all findings independently.
Vahti.ai's pricing is based on active Microsoft 365 users.
The environment changes continuously: users join and leave, applications are connected, sharing permissions change, and Microsoft's features evolve. This means that the original security posture will not remain unchanged automatically.
Schedule regular time to review reports and open findings. At the same time, check whether previous remediations are still in place and whether new risks are justified or the result of a changed way of working.
Technical controls need to be supported by user guidance and practice. Short, regular reminders help users recognise, for example, device code phishing, suspicious sharing requests, and scams involving payment requests.
An M365 security solution should not be selected based solely on a feature list or the score reported by the product. More important is whether you receive a continuous and understandable view of your environment's risks, can decide what to fix first, and can verify the impact of remediation.
At a minimum, assess:
Vahti.ai gives SMEs one way to complement Microsoft 365's built-in security features. It brings findings together, helps prioritise them, and clearly describes the next steps.
The best way to assess whether a solution is suitable is to test it in your own environment and compare the results with how security is currently monitored and remediated.
Not automatically. Microsoft's own tools may be sufficient if the organisation has a suitable licence, the necessary expertise, and an agreed process for continuously monitoring the environment. A separate solution can help when the interpretation, prioritisation, or monitoring of findings would otherwise be incomplete.
Secure Score helps monitor the security posture of Microsoft 365 and the recommendations related to it. A separate tool can complement it by bringing findings together, assessing their significance for the organisation, and providing practical remediation guidance.
MFA is an important baseline control, but it is not enough on its own. You also need, for example, Conditional Access policies, access management, sign-in monitoring, email protection, and guidance for dealing with phishing.
A service operating with read-only permissions can view data and settings but cannot change them. This reduces the risk associated with making changes, but it does not remove data protection considerations. The scope of the permissions and the type of data being processed must also be assessed.
Vahti.ai helps bring Microsoft 365 user, sign-in, and sharing risks into a single view, prioritise findings, and clearly describe the next remediation steps. It does not replace email protection, endpoint protection, log management, or security operations services.