We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"One of the biggest features of the UI is that you see the actual code of what you're doing in the graphical user interface, in a little window on the side. Whatever you're doing, you see the code, what's happening. And you can really quickly switch between using the GUI and using the code. That's really useful."
"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."
"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"The ability to have high performance, high-speed search capability is incredibly important for us. When it comes to doing security analysis, you don't want to be doing is sitting around waiting to get data back while an attacker is sitting on a network, actively attacking it. You need to be able to answer questions quickly. If I see an indicator of attack, I need to be able to rapidly pivot and find data, then analyze it and find more data to answer more questions. You need to be able to do that quickly. If I'm sitting around just waiting to get my first response, then it ends up moving too slow to keep up with the attacker. Devo's speed and performance allows us to query in real-time and keep up with what is actually happening on the network, then respond effectively to events."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."
"Being able to build and modify dashboards on the fly with Activeboards streamlines my analyst time because my analysts aren't doing it across spreadsheets or five different tools to try to build a timeline out themselves. They can just ingest it all, build a timeline out across all the logging, and all the different information sources in one dashboard. So, it's a huge time saver. It also has the accuracy of being able to look at all those data sources in one view. The log analysis, which would take 40 hours, we can probably get through it in about five to eight hours using Devo."
"I like that it's easy. It's got the protection set up, and we can see whatever is required. We write our own rules and the rules that we can input. I think it is good."
"The product offers very strong automation. Our cyber security analysts don't have to correlate the information to detect problems. They only need to analyze problems that have been identified by the platform."
"It is kind of simple and very easily deployable. You can start working with it very fast."
"The integration is very useful and very easy. You can have an API connection with any cloud and I'll be able to do both ways of communication with the help of APA."
"The solution is reliable."
"We have worked with other solutions, such as LogRhythm and Splunk. Compared to others, IBM QRadar has the best price-performance ratio so that you are able to reserve minimum costs. It starts settling in fast and gets the first results very quickly. It is also very scalable."
"The solution is relatively easy to use."
"We've found the technical support to be very good."
"I like that it's easy to use and the performance is good."
"The solution is easy to use, manage, and review all incidents."
"Most valuable features include the granularity of information."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is its artificial intelligence component, Watson. Its contribution is pretty good from a machine-learning artificial intelligence perspective. This compliments the orchestration automation component, as well."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"Devo has a lot of cloud connectors, but they need to do a little bit of work there. They've got good integrations with the public cloud, but there are a lot of cloud SaaS systems that they still need to work with on integrations, such as Salesforce and other SaaS providers where we need to get access logs."
"There's room for improvement within the GUI. There is also some room for improvement within the native parsers they support. But I can say that about pretty much any solution in this space."
"Technical support could be better."
"From our experience, the Devo agent needs some work. They built it on top of OS Query's open-source framework. It seems like it wasn't tuned properly to handle a large volume of Windows event logs. In our experience, there would definitely be some room for improvement. A lot of SIEMs on the market have their own agent infrastructure. I think Devo's working towards that, but I think that it needs some improvement as far as keeping up with high-volume environments."
"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."
"Their documentation could be better. They are growing quickly and need to have someone focused on tech writing to ensure that all the different updates, how to use them, and all the new features and functionality are properly documented."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"It should have more cloud connectors. It could also be cheaper."
"We have certain challenges with integrating the SOAR platform with multiple vendors."
"Sometimes the rules are disabled by FireEye, and we basically get it after the patch. I think there needs to be a better way of creating the application rules. I would like to see better pricing for our licensing."
"The graphical user interface could be improved. It's not easy to handle and it's not easy for a customer or end-user to learn how to manage the solution."
"AI is superb but need improvements."
"There are a lot of things they are working on and a lot of technologies that are not yet there. They should probably work out a better reserve with their ecosystem of business partners and create wider and more in-depth qualities, third-party tools, and add-ons. These things really give immediate business value. For instance, there are many limitations in using SAP, EBS, or Micro-Dynamics. A lot of things that are happening in those platforms could also be monitored and allowed from the cybersecurity risks perspective. IBM might be leaving this gap or empty space for business partners. Some larger organizations might already be doing this. It would be very nice if IBM can make some artificial intelligence part free of charge for all current QRadar users. This would be a big advantage as compared to other competitors. There are companies that are going in different directions. Of course, you can't do everything inside QRadar. In general, it might be very good for all players to provide more use cases, especially regarding data protection and leakage prevention. There are some who are already doing some kind of file integrity or gathering some more information from all possible technologies for building anything related to the user and data analysis, content analysis, and management regarding the data protection."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. If they could lower it, that would be ideal."
"The threat intelligence functionality can be better. In addition, it can have more monitoring capabilities."
"The solution is clunky."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"The user interface is a bit clunky, a bit hard to find what you need."
"It's a per gigabyte cost for ingestion of data. For every gigabyte that you ingest, it's whatever you negotiated your price for. Compared to other contracts that we've had for cloud providers, it's significantly less."
"Our licensing fees are billed annually and per terabyte."
"Devo was very cost-competitive... Devo did come with that 400 days of hot data, and that was not the case with other products."
"We have an OEM agreement with Devo. It is very similar to the standard licensing agreement because we are charged in the same way as any other customer, e.g., we use the backroom."
"Devo is definitely cheaper than Splunk. There's no doubt about that. The value from Devo is good. It's definitely more valuable to me than QRadar or LogRhythm or any of the old, traditional SIEMs."
"I'm not involved in the financial aspect, but I think the licensing costs are similar to other solutions. If all the solutions have a similar cost, Devo provides more for the money."
"[Devo was] in the ballpark with at least a couple of the other front-runners that we were looking at. Devo is a good value and, given the quality of the product, I would expect to pay more."
"Be cautious of metadata inclusion for log types in pricing, as there are some "gotchas" with that."
"It could be cheaper, but that applies to every product."
"The price could be better. But I think it's rightly placed when we buy everything in one shot, and we get some discount for that. That's how we basically plan our deployment, and it's holistic. We pay for the license yearly."
"This price is a little high, so it's an expensive product."
"It's not expensive for the resources that it gives you."
"The pricing is always fine."
"It would be great if this product were cheaper."
"The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually."
"The licensing is also overly complex, as there is a need to buy the work load performance monitoring separately."
"Its price is good in terms of efficiency and the number of people required for implementing various things. You might pay more in terms of money, but you might save on the number of people. For example, if you are using Kibana, you have to pay more for people or experts, which is not the case with IBM QRadar."
"I feel that the price is reasonable but compared to other products that are on the market, such as an offering by Microsoft, it is more expensive."
Devo is the only cloud-native logging and security analytics platform that releases the full potential of all your data to empower bold, confident action when it matters most. Only the Devo platform delivers the powerful combination of real-time visibility, high-performance analytics, scalability, multitenancy, and low TCO crucial for monitoring and securing business operations as enterprises accelerate their shift to the cloud.
FireEye Helix is a cloud-hosted security operations platform that allows organizations to take control of any incident from alert to fix. Available with any FireEye solution, FireEye Helix integrates your security tools and augments them with next-generation SIEM, orchestration and threat intelligence capabilities to capture the untapped potential of security investments. Designed by security experts, for security experts, it empowers security teams to efficiently conduct primary functions, such as alert management, search, analysis, investigations and reporting.
The IBM QRadar security and analytics platform is a lead offering in IBM Security's portfolio. This family of products provides consolidated flexible architecture for security teams to quickly adopt log management, SIEM, user behavior analytics, incident forensics, and threat intelligence and more. As an integrated analytics platform, QRadar streamlines critical capabilities into a common workflow, with tools such as the IBM Security App Exchange ecosystem and Watson for Cyber Security cognitive capability.
With QRadar, you can decrease your overall cost of ownership with an improved detection of threats and enjoy the flexibility of on-premise or cloud deployment, and optional managed security monitoring services.
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
FireEye Helix is ranked 20th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 4 reviews while IBM QRadar is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 56 reviews. FireEye Helix is rated 8.8, while IBM QRadar is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of FireEye Helix writes "We can have an API connection with any cloud, the integration is very easy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM QRadar writes "Provides a single window into your network, SIEM, network flows, and risk management of your assets". FireEye Helix is most compared with Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, ServiceNow Security Operations, Elastic SIEM and LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, whereas IBM QRadar is most compared with Splunk, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, ELK Logstash, Microsoft Sentinel and ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM). See our FireEye Helix vs. IBM QRadar report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.