We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and Seceon Open Threat Management Platform based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Elastic is straightforward, easy to integrate, and highly customizable."
"It's not very complicated to install Elastic."
"The most valuable feature is the machine learning capability."
"We like Elastic Security because it's a REST API-based solution. That's the primary reason we use it."
"The stability of the solution is good."
"We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward."
"The solution is compatible with the cloud-native environment and they can adapt to it faster."
"It is the best open-source product for people working in SO, managing and analyzing logs."
"We only recently started using Seceon, so we aren't taking advantage of all its features yet. We have enabled some proactive alerts about utilization and bottlenecks from high traffic."
"The most valuable features are behaviour analytics, threat intelligence, endpoint detection, and response features."
"Seceon Open Threat Management Platform notifies only genuine alerts. It offers plenty of options that are suitable for MSPs."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is very cost-effective compared to Splunk and LogRhythm."
"The algorithm used in Seceon OTM is clear and logical, categorizing events as needed. This helps us identify and respond to threats effectively."
"I like that it's an AI-based platform. The most valuable feature is that it's a comprehensive solution. Most tools in the marketplace are comprised of miscellaneous items. They fail to provide real-time remediation features. However, with Seceon Open Threat Management Platform, anything you can think of in cybersecurity, like auto-remediation, real-time response, and even on-premise components, is available in a single platform. So, it's perfect for finance and healthcare who don't want to share their data with a third party like the cloud. You can have this on-premise as well. So, the expenditure will be lower as less human intervention is required."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its artificial intelligence."
"The solution's query building is not that intuitive compared to other solutions."
"Upgrades currently released as stacks when it should be a plugin or an extension to save removal and reinstallation."
"We are paying dearly for the guy who is working on the ELK Stack. That knowledge is quite rare and hard to come by. For difficulty and availability of resources, I would rate it a five out of 10."
"With Elastic Security, the challenge arises from the fact that there is a learning curve in relation to queries and understanding the query language provided to extract usable data."
"They don't provide user authentication and authorisation features (Shield) as a part of their open-source version."
"We had issues with scalability. Logstash was not scaling and aggregation was getting delayed. We moved to Fluentd making our stack from ELK to EFK."
"The interface could be more user friendly because it is sometimes hard to deal with."
"There are connectors to gather logs for Windows PCs and Linux PCs, but if we have to get the logs from Syslog then we have to do it manually, and this should be automated."
"It would be ideal with the processing was more manageable. Not many customers are willing to have a dedicated server with two CPUs and one TB of memory. The cost of this is huge for a smaller organization."
"We are at the client’s end, offering services. They don’t know about security rules and benchmarks. We are working on the discovery and remediation but we don’t really have the intelligence that was available while working with other tools. Human working is also very essential for the solution. The automatic session is impossible to play since it needs to touch Redfin for further analysis. No one has breached our clients."
"It would be better if they offered global coverage."
"The product could be improved by including sandboxing capabilities in the next release."
"For future releases, integrating incident response tools and improving communication on incident reporting could be beneficial."
"The product should improve the triggering rate."
"It is a standalone solution now. They need to make it into a cloud-based subscription model. It needs more compatibility for co-managed solutions. It can also have more threats and deeper integration with Microsoft."
"The management console could use some enhancements."
More Seceon Open Threat Management Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 59 reviews while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is ranked 21st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 10 reviews. Elastic Security is rated 7.6, while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seceon Open Threat Management Platform writes "Has the ability to categorize alerts and reporting dashboards are useful". Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, IBM Security QRadar and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, whereas Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is most compared with IBM Security QRadar, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, Fortinet FortiSIEM, Splunk Enterprise Security and ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM). See our Elastic Security vs. Seceon Open Threat Management Platform 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.
