We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"The thing that Devo does better than other solutions is to give me the ability to write queries that look at multiple data sources and run fast. Most SIEMs don't do that. And I can do that by creating entity-based queries. Let's say I have a table which has Okta, a table which has G Suite, a table which has endpoint telemetry, and I have a table which has DNS telemetry. I can write a query that says, 'Join all these things together on IP, and where the IP matches in all these tables, return to me that subset of data, within these time windows.' I can break it down that way."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"This is a good tool to have because it gives you the ability to track what is currently happening in your environment."
"The most valuable features are the versatility of this solution and the variety of things you can do with it."
"The flexibility is good in terms of pulling log files."
"I like that it's easy to use and the performance is good."
"The solution is reliable."
"When it comes to QRadar, they can do the correlation and not only in networks but also endpoints. This is one of the good features that we have noticed."
"I think the QDI is very good."
"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 visualizations in Kibana are the most valuable feature. It's much more convenient to have a visualization of logs. We can see status really clearly and very fast, with just a couple of clicks."
"The other nice thing about Logz.io is their team. When it comes to onboarding, their support is incredibly proactive. They bring the brand experience from a customer services perspective because their team is always there to help you refine filters and tweak dashboards. That is really a useful thing to have. Their engagement is really supportive."
"It is massively useful and great for testing. We can just go, find logs, and attach them easily. It has a very quick lookup. Whereas, before we would have to go, dig around, and find the server that the logs were connected to, then go to the server, download the log, and attach it. Now, we can just go straight to this solution, type in the log ID and server ID, and obtain the information that we want."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"There's always room to reduce the learning curve over how to deal with events and machine data. They could make the machine data simpler."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"One major area for improvement for Devo... is to provide more capabilities around pre-built monitoring. They're working on integrations with different types of systems, but that integration needs to go beyond just onboarding to the platform. It needs to include applications, out-of-the-box, that immediately help people to start monitoring their systems. Such applications would include dashboards and alerts, and then people could customize them for their own needs so that they aren't starting from a blank slate."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
"The user interface is a bit difficult to get used to."
"AI is superb but need improvements."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. If they could lower it, that would be ideal."
"The solution is clunky."
"Solution has too many menus that require going to two or three sub-monitors to enter the QRadar."
"There is a shortage of skilled individuals with knowledge about the solution. There is training required."
"Right now, if you look at the compatibility, if you need to deploy QRadar in a physical appliance you have only two choices of server, their own or a Lenovo server. In today's world, you cannot keep something tied to such a big brand. Clients want to be able to use whatever type of server they want."
"When it comes to reducing our troubleshooting time, it depends. When there are no bugs in Logz.io, it reduces troubleshooting by 5 to 10 percent. When there are bugs, it increases our troubleshooting time by 200 percent or more."
"I would like them to improve how they manage releases. Some of our integrations integrate specifically with set versions. Logz.io occasionally releases an update that might break that integration. On one occasion, we found out a little bit too late, then we had to roll it back."
"I would like granularity on alerting so we can get tentative alerts and major alerts, then break it down between the two."
"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."
"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."
"Be cautious of metadata inclusion for log types in pricing, as there are some "gotchas" with that."
"I like the pricing very much. They keep it simple. It is a single price based on data ingested, and they do it on an average. If you get a spike of data that flows in, they will not stick it to you or charge you for that. They are very fair about that."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually."
"There is a license required for this solution and it is an annual payment. I have found all solutions in the category to be expensive, including Splunk."
"The price of this solution is reasonable."
"It's very expensive but it fits our budget."
"The licensing is also overly complex, as there is a need to buy the work load performance monitoring separately."
"This price is a little high, so it's an expensive product."
"I think that the price is fair, but we can always say that the price could be cheaper."
"It is a perpetual license that we have for the event collector. The licensing is done based on the number of events and flows that you receive on this particular device. These are perpetual licenses, which means once you purchase them, they don't expire, which means that the support to IBM is definitely renewed after every one year. We have an enterprise agreement with IBM, which puts the cost in a totally different category as compared to someone who is not an IBM partner and is approaching IBM for this solution. We were able to get massive discounts. To give you an idea, we recently purchased 30,000 event licenses, and it costs around $480,000. It is definitely not a cheap product. We have licenses for about 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second. All the appliances and their events and flows are basically clubbed together and charged or rather calculated through a single source. The console receives all the details from all the event processes that we have globally. So, the license that we have is a single license for 270,000 events per second and 3 million flows per second, but that can be managed centrally. I was only part of the secondary purchase, which was 30,000 events per second for about $480,000. You can calculate how much we paid for 270,000 events. Reducing its price would be a compromise. We have already used a lower-priced product in the form of NNT, but we had to get rid of it because it was not doing the job that we actually wanted to do. You get what you pay for."
"At the time it was set up, we thought Logz.io was very reasonable for what we were getting in terms of how much time and hosting costs it was saving us, because you don't have to run the servers for it anymore."
"You pay for what you need, and that is a good model. They are also quite happy to talk to you about your uses and your use case. They will even go as far as suggesting things that you don't need to do in order to save you money. At one point, I was quite surprised at how cheap it could be if we wanted it to be or how much they would help us manage our costs."
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.
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.
Logz.io is a leading cloud-native observability platform that enables engineers to use the best open source tools in the market without the complexity of operating, managing, and scaling them. Logz.io offers four products: Log Management built on ELK, Infrastructure Monitoring based on Prometheus, Distributed Tracing based on Jaeger, and an ELK-based Cloud SIEM. These are offered as fully managed, integrated cloud services designed to help engineers monitor, troubleshoot and secure their distributed cloud workloads more effectively. Engineering driven companies like Siemens, Unity and ZipRecruiter use Logz.io to simplify monitoring and security workflows, increasing developer productivity, reducing time to resolve issues, and increasing the performance and security of their mission-critical applications.
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
IBM QRadar is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 57 reviews while Logz.io is ranked 21st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 3 reviews. IBM QRadar is rated 8.2, while Logz.io is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM QRadar writes "Provides a single window into your network, SIEM, network flows, and risk management of your assets". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Logz.io writes "Improved our troubleshooting by giving us visibility into what's going on". IBM QRadar is most compared with Splunk, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, ELK Logstash, Microsoft Sentinel and ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), whereas Logz.io is most compared with Datadog, Splunk, vRealize Log Insight, Coralogix and Graylog. See our IBM QRadar vs. Logz.io report.
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.