We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Wazuh based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: IBM Security QRadar users say the solution provides extensive information and helpful leads for locating pertinent data. Wazuh stands out for its effortless integration, excellent log monitoring capabilities, and ELK-based investigation. IBM Security 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. Wazuh needs improvements in event source coverage, threat intelligence integration, and real-time monitoring of Unix systems.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Wazuh's customer service is generally deemed satisfactory, and many customers noted that they could easily find answers from community forums.
Ease of Deployment: IBM Security QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Some users said that Wazuh’s setup is easy and fast, while others perceived it as complicated and said it required a significant amount of time.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Wazuh is a cost-effective option as it is open-source and completely free to acquire.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Wazuh's MSP program and partnerships offer opportunities to generate revenue from the platform.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer IBM Security QRadar over Wazuh. The advanced security features and overall strength of QRadar make it the favored option. Users like QRadar's extensive and actionable insights, user-friendly interface, and adaptability. QRadar offers a comprehensive overview of network activity and risk management.
"Microsoft 365 Defender is simple to upgrade."
"The most valuable feature of all is the full integration with the rest of the software in the operating system and Office 365, as well as Microsoft SCCM. It is quite easy for us to work with the whole instance of Microsoft products. This integration improves the benefits of the whole suite of products."
"The integration between all the Defender products is the most valuable feature."
"The product integrates security into one tool instead of having third-party security tools."
"The attack simulation is excellent; initially, this feature wasn't very robust, but Microsoft improved what we could achieve with it. We can now customize our practice phishing emails and include our company logo, for example. Attack simulation also helps integrate with third-party solutions where applicable and provides an overview of our security architecture through testing. The summary includes areas for improvement in our protection and what steps we need to take to get there."
"The portal is quite user-friendly. There is integration with Office, Intune, and other products from the same portal. From there, we can see which policies are installed on a particular machine. We also can manage devices, groups, and tagging."
"The summarization of emails is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the network security."
"In addition to using this solution for our security operations center, we are using it for our other customers."
"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."
"The stability is good."
"It's hard for me to pinpoint any one feature that's most valuable because it is all about consuming logs and analyzing them. We started using QRadar UBA because we needed something that could analyze Linux authentication information. Other products take care of the Windows platform."
"Most of the features are good. It is an excellent solution."
"Senses, tracks, and links significant incidents and threats."
"Search capabilities are sufficient for most tasks."
"It's a state-of-the-art product for security information and event management (SIEM)."
"I find the PCI DSS feature the most valuable, along with the feature that monitors the compliance of Windows and the CIS benchmarks on other devices like Unix or Linux systems."
"It has efficient SCA capabilities."
"If they support a solution, it is easy to do an integration."
"Good for monitoring, active response, and for vulnerabilities."
"The product is easy to customize."
"The product’s interface is intuitive."
"It is a stable solution."
"Wazuh is simple to use for PCI compliance."
"There should be better information for experts on features in the solution. What I see when reading about features in Microsoft 365 Defender is that it is always general information. If Microsoft could go deeper into details for the experts about how to use the tools, usage of it would be more familiar and it would be easier to use."
"I would like more of the features in Defender for 365 to be included in the smaller licenses. Even if I buy a small license and don't need everything, security shouldn't be a question. Security is one of the main aspects of all projects from our side, so it would be nice to have more features in the smaller licenses."
"The onboarding and offboarding need improvement. I work with other vendors as well, and they have an option to add a device or remove a device from the portal, whereas with Microsoft 365 Defender, we need to do that manually. However, once you do that, everything can be controlled through the portal, but getting the device onboarded and offboarded is currently manual. If we have an option to simply remove a device from the portal or get a device added from the portal, it would be more convenient. The rest of the features are similar. This is the only area where I found it different from others. I would also like to be able to simply filter with a few of the queries that are already there."
"I'd like to see a wider solution that includes not only desktop devices but also other devices, such as servers, storage cabinets, switching equipment, et cetera."
"Offboarding latency should be reduced. Even after a device has been successfully offboarded using a particular offboarding script, it still shows up as onboarded."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"Generally, antivirus products provide a central control to manage every device in terms of who is installing it or who is trying to disable it, but Microsoft doesn't have such a control center for the antivirus product it provides."
"The data recovery and backup could be improved."
"Before we didn't have any security issues but recently a few of the user emails were hacked. We had to actually recreate their emails for them."
"The modularity could be improved."
"The dashboard is pathetic and it takes a long time to perform a search."
"The user interface is a bit clunky, a bit hard to find what you need."
"Technical support really needs to be improved. Right now, they aren't where they need to be at all."
"QRadar UBA only keeps the data for a short while (it's refreshed every five minutes) and would be improved if this were extended to a week or month."
"Whenever we are upgrading or installing any type of patch, at that time we have some delays."
"Ideally we would like a mobile version so that any alert that comes in will notify us in a mobile app, or by using SMS integration."
"Some features, like alerting, are complex with Wazuh."
"While it is scalable, it can suffer from reduced latencies."
"There could be a hardware monitoring tool for the solution."
"The deployment is a bit complex."
"Wazuh needs more security and features, particularly visualization features and a health monitor."
"The tool does not provide CTI to monitor darknet."
"It would be better if they had a vulnerability assessment plug-in like the one AlienVault has. In the next release, I would like to have an app with an alerting mechanism."
"They could include flexibility and customization capabilities by modifying for customers based on partner agreements."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Wazuh is ranked 2nd in Log Management with 38 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Wazuh is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Wazuh writes "It integrates seamlessly with AWS cloud-native services". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, LogRhythm SIEM, Elastic Security and Sentinel, whereas Wazuh is most compared with Elastic Security, Security Onion, Splunk Enterprise Security, AlienVault OSSIM and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Wazuh report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors, best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
