We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"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."
"Those 400 days of hot data mean that people can look for trends and at what happened in the past. And they can not only do so from a security point of view, but even for operational use cases. In the past, our operational norm was to keep live data for only 30 days. Our users were constantly asking us for at least 90 days, and we really couldn't even do that. That's one reason that having 400 days of live data is pretty huge. As our users start to use it and adopt this system, we expect people to be able to do those long-term analytics."
"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."
"Devo provides a multi-tenant, cloud-native architecture. This is critical for managed service provider environments or multinational organizations who may have subsidiaries globally. It gives organizations a way to consolidate their data in a single accessible location, yet keep the data separate. This allows for global views and/or isolated views restricted by access controls by company or business unit."
"In traditional BI solutions, you need to wait a lot of time to have the ability to create visualizations with the data and to do searches. With this kind of platform, you have that information in real-time."
"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."
"I like the various options, including the option for CMDB and the easier access to create rules, playbooks, or use cases. It's also easier to use for creating dashboards and reports."
"We find the solution to be stable."
"One of the most valuable features is that we can combine SOC and NOC operations in the same tool. We can provide NOC and SOC services in the same tool for two separate teams. There are plenty of third-party solutions that integrate with FortiSIEM. All these solutions already have a ready integration, and we have the possibility to create a custom connector for these solutions. Its reports are also very good."
"We have found the most important features in Fortinet FortiSIEM to be the correlation, file utility check, latest file, and hash changes. These features are important for us."
"The stability is very reliable. It offers very good performance."
"It's a very nice solution to work with."
"The CMDB and the device discovery features are most valuable."
"It's very easy for anyone to work with."
"Most valuable features include the granularity of information."
"The solution can scale."
"I have found IBM QRadar to be scalable."
"The solution is easy to use, manage, and review all incidents."
"Customer service is very good and very helpful."
"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 product provides a complete platform for ingesting the log, doing the correlations and handling the runtime."
"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."
"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."
"Technical support could be better."
"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."
"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."
"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."
"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."
"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."
"It would be good if the solution offered even more configuration options, especially in relation to the VPN so that it continues to be a very flexible option."
"We need to see incident reports about the event log, without events from the administrator or through human interaction."
"Not very good on non-API features, lacks that functionality."
"Its training can be improved. Its price also needs to be improved."
"We expect the latest patch from Fortinet FortiSIEM to give the ability to work with signature files."
"There is no proper guide for integration or configuration."
"I would like to see easier implementation in the future."
"The solution needs to do a better job with third party integration. Right now, that's lacking on the solution. I specifically am talking about the AWS environment. Most of the AWS environment products do not have that capability to integrate."
"There should be easier and wider integration opportunities. There should be more opportunities for integration with CTI info sharing areas. On platforms where you exchange CTI, there should be more visibility connected to what we share, what we can reach, or what options are connected to CTI info sharing. This is one area where they could add value because we cannot integrate it easily with QRadar. If a client has a legacy or already existing solutions for CTI, we cannot ask them to forget it because we cannot guarantee that QRadar is able to deliver everything connected to this area."
"We need more features in order to create rules to detect or to meet some requirements for other areas, for example, catching the event from other authentication tools."
"When it comes to what could be better, it is always what others are trying to do and what is the roadmap. It can have more integration. It should have more flexible RESTful APIs for integration with applications. These are the things that are always in demand for any of the SIEM solutions, not only for QRadar. Integration is ever-evolving. Nowadays, different versions of mobile handsets are there and data is getting scattered. Users are using their personal handsets to keep the data of the organization. So, it should have a more flexible integration, irrespective of the flavor of the firmware and iOS or Android version. It should have an API that can seamlessly get integrated. It should also provide more flexible control and a more advanced or analytical view to see what exactly is happening across the globe or network. From wherever a user is connecting and accessing the enterprise data, it should give real-time visibility and predictive visibility about what exactly is happening. These things are already there, but there should be more advanced control in terms of managing the security."
"Technical support could be improved by a bit."
"The whole process for support is something that needs to be improved."
"The initial setup requires that you have somebody with the proper skill set, and it would help if the configuration were easier."
"The user interface is a bit clunky, a bit hard to find what you need."
"The technical support can be improved a little bit, and the price could be cheaper."
"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."
"Be cautious of metadata inclusion for log types in pricing, as there are some "gotchas" with that."
"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 very cost-competitive... Devo did come with that 400 days of hot data, and that was not the case with other products."
"[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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The price of Fortinet FortiSIEM is a lot less when compared to other solutions."
"Pricing is acceptable for more than 90% of our customers, as they normally get discounts."
"They have a yearly subscription."
"The solution is available for both, perpetual and subscription licenses."
"Its price can be better. We are Fortinet partners, so we can get discounts, but its price can be an issue at the beginning for others. There is a licensing scheme for every case. There are three licensing schemes that we can choose from."
"The price could be better. I bought a subscription for three years."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is always fine."
"I think that the price is fair, but we can always say that the price could be cheaper."
"There is a license required for this solution."
"There are different types of subscriptions available. We were on an annual subscription, but our customers typically choose the two years subscription option."
"The solution is priced fairly, there is a license for the solution, and we pay annually."
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.
FortiSIEM (formerly AccelOps 4) provides an actionable security intelligence platform to monitor security, performance and compliance through a single pane of glass.
Companies around the world use FortiSIEM for the following use cases:
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.
Fortinet FortiSIEM is ranked 5th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 12 reviews while IBM QRadar is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 57 reviews. Fortinet FortiSIEM is rated 7.8, while IBM QRadar is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiSIEM writes "Very easy alert setup; a good tool for analysis and for SOC". 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". Fortinet FortiSIEM is most compared with Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic SIEM, Zabbix and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas IBM QRadar is most compared with Splunk, ELK Logstash, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, Microsoft Sentinel and Rapid7 InsightIDR. See our Fortinet FortiSIEM 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.