We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Datadog based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: QRadar users say the solution provides extensive information and helpful leads for locating pertinent data. QRadar stands out with its comprehensive network visibility and strong SIEM capabilities. Datadog users like its customizable displays, error tracking, and advanced AI/ML capabilities. QRadar could improve its rule deployment and lower its false positive rate. Users would also like expanded storage capacity, streamlined user management, and a more mature architecture. Datadog could enhance its usability and reduce its learning curve. Users said integration was another pain point.
Service and Support: Some QRadar customers have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. While many users spoke highly of Datadog’s support team, others reported slow support, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
Ease of Deployment: QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Datadog’s setup is considered straightforward, and users often receive help from a partner or vendor.
Pricing: QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Opinions about Datadog's price are divided. Some users found it costly, but others thought it was acceptable. Some said the pricing model could be clearer and better explained.
ROI: QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Users said Datadog saved them time and improved visibility into security blind spots.
"Datadog has so far been a breeze to use and set up."
"Datadog is providing efficiency in the products we develop for the wireless device engineering department."
"It lets us react more quickly to things going wrong. Whereas before, it might have been 30 minutes to an hour before we noticed something going on, we will know within a minute or two if something is off, which will let us essentially get something back up and running faster for our customers, which is revenue."
"By moving to Datadog, we did not need to manage our own monitoring infrastructure anymore."
"We have found that we're able to get in and out of troubleshooting issues much more rapidly, which in turn, of course, enables us to spend more time on our products."
"If we have a large load for users using our basic Datadog, it will immediately fire off an alert notifying us either something's wrong or not."
"I like that you can build out a dashboard pretty quickly. There are some things that come out of the box that you don't really need to do, which is great because they're default settings."
"Even if we don't end up using Datadog, it revealed problems and optimizations to us that weren't obvious before."
"The threat hunting capabilities in general are great."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution is quite flexible."
"The simplicity of the solution is the best feature."
"It has improved my efficiency."
"It is a very good SIEM."
"The ability to add extensions is the most valuable feature. For example, extensions that provide valuable test ports."
"There are other third-party plugins that we can use."
"Sometimes, it takes a long time to load the dashboard if we have many charts."
"Datadog could make their use cases more visible either through their docs or tutorial videos."
"It can have a more modernized pricing mechanism. We're actually working with them to figure out how to become more modular and have a better and more modernized pricing mechanism. The issue with Datadog is that you have to buy the whole suite of different products, and you kind of get stuck in the old utilization of 40% of their suite. Most organizations today break down between application development, networking, and security. Therefore, there should be a way to break down different modules into just app dev, infosec, networking, etc. Customers have various needs across their business lines, and sometimes, they're just not willing to have tools that they're not using 100%. AppDynamics is probably a little bit better in terms of being modular."
"Some of the interface is still confusing to use."
"The dashboard could be improved. It would be helpful to get a view of specific things that we need to monitor for our application."
"The setup was a bit complex."
"There is always room for improvement when dealing with cloud-based technologies. Mainly, I would say, it's just increasing our offerings to attract various other types of industries and businesses across more fields."
"The product needs to have more enterprise approach to configuration."
"I would like to see the update process simplified."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"Each module requires a separate license and a separate cost."
"The tech support is not that good."
"The dashboard is pathetic and it takes a long time to perform a search."
"The threat intelligence functionality can be better. In addition, it can have more monitoring capabilities."
"The product needs to improve its GUI."
"The solution is highly used here in Pakistan and in many sectors, they could improve it by having more SIEM connectors."
Datadog is ranked 3rd in Log Management with 137 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews. Datadog is rated 8.6, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Datadog writes "Very good RUM, synthetics, and infrastructure host maps". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Datadog is most compared with Dynatrace, Azure Monitor, New Relic, AWS X-Ray and Elastic Observability, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh and LogRhythm SIEM. See our Datadog vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.