We performed a comparison between Grafana Loki and IBM Security QRadar based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Grafana Loki is the dashboards which are really simple to create."
"The solution's stability has never been a problem. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten."
"I appreciate the capability to process logs from microservices and seamlessly integrate them into Grafana."
"We are using Grafana Loki as a database for real-time metrics."
"The log collection feature is good and the solution is easily understandable. v"
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is an open-source tool that is stable and flexible."
"The tool can be used in multi-cluster environments."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the tool's GUI. The solution's GUI is very user-friendly."
"The tool is already automated in many ways, but there are some additional functions which should be automated, like sending an email, mobile notification, and integration of XFS."
"Integration is very easy and the reporting is good."
"Vulnerability detection is the most valuable feature. It's the tool that finds the threats."
"The scalability is good."
"One of the most valuable features of this solution is it has very good data correlation."
"It is incredibly easy to deploy. All the appliances are flexible in the roles that they serve and are all managed the in the same way."
"It is a pretty solid product for the type that it is representing. It is a CM solution as compared to Splunk or ArcSight from HP. It is also user friendly. It comes with some internal AI as well, in which it automatically maps multiple lots from unrelated devices and makes a smart decision to link them back and create an offense based on that. It is a smart tool."
"IBM QRadar has improved my organization by introducing many functions. It collects logs from all of our systems in the organization and has functioned very well. It alerts and correlates the aggregate events or offenses we receive through all the applications we use."
"There is a need for some change in the alerting types of the product. In short, a few changes in the alert area are needed due to minor shortcomings."
"Visualization-wise, Grafana Loki's dashboard looks a little outdated compared to other open-source visualization tools like Chronograf."
"Enhancing speed could be a game-changer, and while it might vary depending on the application, it's a factor worth exploring."
"The product must improve its UI."
"My main concern is the recommended production-grade setup. They suggest using tools like Tanka or Jsonnet. They should simplify the process to increase adoption."
"The solution has shortcomings regarding security monitoring-oriented features that need improvement."
"The solution's scalability depends on the team managing the Grafana instance."
"We had a well-structured dashboard with a functional query. However, an issue arose when the Kubernetes pod restarted. The statistics from our Grafana query would reset, dropping to zero and starting anew. This was particularly noticeable with linear graphs, which are expected to show consistent growth."
"IBM QRadar has outdated technology, and this is its area for improvement. When you try to implement an analytic expression, it's not updated. The solution doesn't support newer technologies, and it doesn't update regularly. For example, around the world, others implement new technologies, while IBM updates later than others."
"There is a lot of manual configuration required in order for the product to run smoothly, and I think that it could be made more automatic."
"The solution is highly used here in Pakistan and in many sectors, they could improve it by having more SIEM connectors."
"The implementation and configuration are not easy."
"SOAR is what is expected the most from QRadar. They have something called SOAR Resilient, and it would be great if that gets induced in SIEM. IBM QRadar (as well as McAfee ESM) should have analytics platform integration. Currently, SIEMs don't have full-fledged integration with analytics where we are able to dump our data in SIEM, and the same data can be called from different analytics applications. We should be able to bring this data to a platform like Hadoop for big data and run the analytics there. Currently, people are seeing the past data and taking some actions in the present, but when it comes to analytics, there should be futuristic data where you can predict something out of your present and past data. Apart from that, I would like to see a full-fledged ITSM tool in QRadar. It sometimes has some technical issues that need to be checked. It requires a dedicated QRadar engineer to completely manage it. It has different module sets, such as event collector and event processor, and some technical glitches come in between. It takes the log but doesn't exactly process it in the way we want."
"Pricing model could be more cost-effective."
"The solution lacks some maturity."
"AI is superb but need improvements."
Grafana Loki is ranked 13th in Log Management with 12 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews. Grafana Loki is rated 8.0, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Grafana Loki writes "Effective for Logging, recovery from node failures is fast and single UI supports metrics, logs, and even tracing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Grafana Loki is most compared with Graylog, Wazuh, syslog-ng, Splunk Enterprise Security and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Grafana Loki 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.