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.
"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."
"The CCM, Workflows, Logs, APM, and RUM are all useful aspects of the solution."
"It has a high-level insight into the infrastructure model of the application and provides important detailed data on the host and metrics, which is the main concern of our customers."
"This spectrum of solutions has allowed us to track down bugs faster and more rapidly, which allows us to limit revenue lost during downtime."
"The seamless integration between Datadog and hundreds of apps makes onboarding new products and teams a breeze."
"Excellent autocomplete for everything in the UI."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the APM."
"The management of SLOs and their related burn-rate monitors have allowed us to onboard teams to on-call fast."
"QRadar UBA's most valuable feature is the risk rating of users depending on their behavior."
"One of the most valuable features is its ability to integrate with other solutions. IBM has a lot of solutions and we have managed to make it work with IBM BigFix and MaaS360, and even Microsoft."
"The most valuable feature is user behavior analytics (UBA)."
"I like that it's easy to use and the performance is good."
"It is the core of our entire SOX."
"The most valuable features are the AI assistant, which is good at detecting known types of behavior."
"IBM QRadar is great help from its security event monitoring to data center and NOC troubleshooting of issues hard for other departments to spot."
"The most valuable feature is the searching capability and real-time operational use."
"I'd like to see better pricing and more integration in the next release."
"The installation is easy for me. However, if you are new to this solution it might not be so easy."
"Some of the interface is still confusing to use."
"It would also be nice if we had more insight into our own usage of Datadog (agents and custom metrics). They provide a usage page which does help, but it is not in real-time."
"Could be a little more user friendly."
"To be very fair, I haven't had enough experience with Datadog to pick out improvements."
"Datadog is so feature-rich that it is often hard to onboard new folks and tough to decide where to invest time."
"The dashboard could be improved. It would be helpful to get a view of specific things that we need to monitor for our application."
"QRadar needs a lot of fine tuning"
"I would like the rule creation interface to be much more user-friendly in the next release."
"The only problem is that if you have too many events that occur, then the storage capacity becomes a problem. We would need to increase the storage capacity."
"We need more features in order to create rules to detect or to meet some requirements for other areas, for example, catching the event from other authentication tools."
"IBM QRadar Advisor with Watson could be more user-friendly. You need some skills and understanding of what you're looking at, especially if you're going to draw down specific information."
"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."
"IMB should reduce the pricing, or reduce some of the features for a more economical solution for the customer."
"I have noticed the interface has room for improvement."
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 Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Google Chronicle Suite. 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.