We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Mezmo 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 feature that I have found most valuable is its artificial intelligence component, Watson. Its contribution is pretty good from a machine-learning artificial intelligence perspective. This compliments the orchestration automation component, as well."
"QRadar shows very effective correlations. If you combine all the logins plus user behavior and the current intelligence, it gives a very good correlation for business. I think it reduces the false positives in user activity monitoring because there is a lot of social information to correlate with other data."
"One very useful feature is the plug-in offering that allows you to integrate it with other solutions, such as integrating it with plug-ins like Scout, Carbon Black, and the rest."
"I like the graphical interface. It's so good and easy."
"On the back-end, Watson helps me figure out an exact problem, sometimes giving me the result."
"The timeline and machine learning features are great."
"The scalability is good."
"The feature that I find the most useful is that IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is free of charge. It's a fully free product that can be installed on top of IBM QRadar SIEM."
"LogDNA consolidates all logs into one place, which is super valuable."
"The solution aggregates all event streams, so that if there are any issues, it's all in the same interface."
"I would like for them to develop a detection management solution. It does not have a detecting management solution in it, you have to buy it as it is, on top of the extended solution."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
"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."
"The solution can be improved by lowering the cost and bettering their technical support."
"The solution should include remote action capabilities."
"I would like to see the update process simplified."
"Their technical support is not good. We opened a lot of cases and from my experience, they are not complicated issues but it takes forever to get an answer."
"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."
"Every once in a while, our IBM cloud operational implementation gets behind. Sometimes, when we have a customer event, we do not get access to the latest logs for about 30 minutes, particularly for the sites that are heavily utilized. This is clearly not good. It is impossible to RCA when you can't look at the logs that pertain to the time period in which the event occurred. It could be more of an operational problem than a feature problem. I don't have visibility about whether it is a LogDNA issue or just an operational issue."
"No ability to encapsulate a query or a filter, and communicate or share that among the team."
Earn 20 points
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Mezmo is ranked 53rd in Log Management. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Mezmo is rated 9.0. 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 Mezmo writes "Has vastly increased our ability to reach SLA targets consistently". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas Mezmo is most compared with Cribl Stream and Datadog. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Mezmo 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.