We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"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."
"It's very, very versatile."
"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."
"I have found its network traffic log, network bit log, and QBI most valuable."
"The product has plenty of features and capabilities."
"I have found IBM QRadar to be scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the searching capability and real-time operational use."
"I have found the most important features to be the flexibility, tech framework, and disk manager."
"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 most valuable aspect of the solution is the integration capabilities on offer."
"Customer service is very good and very helpful."
"It enables us to detect malicious threats, issues, or vulnerabilities in our network."
"The most valuable feature in ESM is its search and reporting feature. It's really nice."
"Compared to other solutions, the user interface is good."
"I like the ease of deployment."
"The most valuable feature is the correlation rules."
"The solution is 100% stable. We really have had a great time working with it. It hasn't let us down."
"It is easy to use and deploy. It comes with user-friendly manuals."
"It is user-friendly. The notification part of McAfee ESM is very easy."
"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."
"Technical support could be better."
"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."
"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 would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"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'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."
"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."
"We have had problems with networking."
"QRadar needs to be more specialized, along the lines of what other SIEM solutions are."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
"The solution should enhance its capabilities of UEBA and AI/ML tech modeling."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"Technical support really needs to be improved. Right now, they aren't where they need to be at all."
"The solution is highly used here in Pakistan and in many sectors, they could improve it by having more SIEM connectors."
"There is a shortage of skilled individuals with knowledge about the solution. There is training required."
"McAfee is no more providing security updates on this product, and the enhancements to this product seem to have stopped. Moreover, we don't get proper support, and we struggle to get its support. It would be good if they can add some AI engine and out of the box use cases because it is currently limited to the same scenario and the same setup. I have done a POC for Securonix, LogRhythm. These products are much more ahead as compared to McAfee ESM. They have included multiple modules in the same solution. Correlation is very easy. If McAfee ESM can improve, especially in such implementations, then I believe it would be much better."
"The initial setup is difficult and could improve."
"It is not a very advanced solution, and it is for very generic use cases. It cannot cope with the advanced requirements that we're going to have. For example, for multiple authentication failures, it is still based on Windows events for detecting multiple login failures, whereas other companies are going beyond and working on implementing two-factor authentication. It is time to correlate the two-factor authentication results with authentification failures, which is not happening with McAfee ESM. The performance of the tool should be improved because it is very slow. The data display on the console is very slow in McAfee ESM. Its data storage is still old-fashioned, and it should be improved and upgraded to the latest versions. They have to come up with some new ideas to match what other leaders in the same domain are doing. For example, in Splunk, when you search for information for the last 60 days or five months, it quickly shows the information, but that is not the case with McAfee. The results should be quicker and faster on the console. They should integrate some additional features such as User Behavior Analytics (UBA) and automation. The threat intelligence part should also be improved on McAfee."
"Cloud integration has room for improvement because they're not full-fledged to integrate with the cloud solutions that come. They use different integration platforms to bring in data, and that needs to be improved."
"I would like to see good analytics in future releases."
"It cannot integrate with our Next-Generation Firewall and few applications such as Cisco ACI."
"There should be support for multitenancy in the product."
"The only drawback is that they don't have any packet capturing or network behavior analysis."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Devo was very cost-competitive... Devo did come with that 400 days of hot data, and that was not the case with other products."
"Be cautious of metadata inclusion for log types in pricing, as there are some "gotchas" with that."
"Our licensing fees are billed annually and per terabyte."
"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."
"It could be cheaper, but the value itself is far more important for us than the price. Typically, our clients have yearly subscriptions."
"This price is a little high, so it's an expensive product."
"The price of this solution is reasonable."
"IBM QRadar is a little bit expensive compared to other products."
"We use QRadar as a managed service and we pay licensing fees to the partner."
"The price could be better. I bought a subscription for three years."
"Customers have to purchase a license based on the number of users, devices, and applications they want to protect. It allows you to take a license on a subscription basis for three years or five years."
"The cost is all included. The finance department handles the financial part, and we mostly don't get involved in it."
"The pricing is fair."
"The price is good. It's moderate. We follow a pay-as-you-go model. There are different models available, and they can also be monthly. You can choose monthly or yearly. It's very flexible. If our existing customers exceed the current plan, you can just call McAfee and get it extended."
"McAfee is the right choice for a low-budget solution."
"We renew our license annually."
"The pricing is good, and they are competitive compared to providers such as RSA and IBM QRadar."
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.
McAfee Enterprise Security Manager - the foundation of the security information and event management (SIEM) solution family from McAfee delivers the performance, actionable intelligence, and real-time situational awareness at the speed and scale required for security organizations to identify, understand, and respond to stealthy threats, while the embedded compliance framework simplifies compliance.
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 McAfee ESM is ranked 16th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 10 reviews. IBM QRadar is rated 8.2, while McAfee ESM is rated 6.6. 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 McAfee ESM writes "A security information and event management solution with a useful search and reporting feature, but cloud integration could be better". IBM QRadar is most compared with Splunk, ELK Logstash, LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, Microsoft Sentinel and Elastic SIEM, whereas McAfee ESM is most compared with Splunk, ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM), LogRhythm NextGen SIEM, Cybereason Endpoint Detection & Response and Fortinet FortiSIEM. See our IBM QRadar vs. McAfee ESM 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.