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.
"I have found error reporting and log centralization the most valuable features. Overall, Datadog provides a full package solution."
"Integrating Datadog with other platforms has made our monitoring processes a bit easier. It's not super simple, but it's manageable."
"The CCM, Workflows, Logs, APM, and RUM are all useful aspects of the solution."
"The most valuable aspects of the product include the APM and profiler."
"The solution has helped out organization gain improved visibility."
"The feature I have found most valuable is when I can reuse existing monitors and alerts for new dashboards."
"Its logs are most valuable."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the APM."
"We are using the platform version, which I like."
"I have found the most important features to be the flexibility, tech framework, and disk manager."
"Vulnerability data, network data and the like, are part of correlation and detection."
"It's quite scalable. We have upgraded some solutions from 1000 APS up to 3500 APS to 5000 APS. It's a good solution, they have no scalability issues."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is how it monitors the real network. That is its leading security feature."
"The detection rate is good and the false positive rate is low."
"It is the core of our entire SOX."
"I think this is a good product for enterprises because of the performance and out-of-the-box rules and use cases. If they want to reach the maturity level early, they can use these out-of-the-box rules and use cases. That will help them a lot."
"Auto instrumentation on tracing has not been very easy to find in the documentation."
"Geo-data is also something very critical that we hope to see in the future."
"It could probably be a little bit of a better user experience."
"All solutions have some area to improve, and in Datadog they can improve their overall technology moving forward."
"Since the Datadog platform has so many separate features, solving so many use cases, there are often inconsistencies in feature availability and interoperability between products."
"The solution should provide alerts for cloud outages."
"We need more visibility into the error tracking dashboard."
"It lacks consistency in the APIs."
"The solution could improve by having more out-of-the-box use cases."
"I would suggest QRadar release any documentation or give an online demo, like videos on YouTube. It would increase publicity and public appeal."
"It would be better if it were more stable and more secure. The price for maintenance could be better. It's too high. In the next release, I think they should focus on the price and the operation."
"The technical support can be improved a little bit, and the price could be cheaper."
"I would like to see the update process simplified."
"The only challenge is that IBM has been a closed enterprise. It should be more open to integrating with other providers at an enterprise level. We're a bank and the core banking system integration is not way straightforward and there is no integration between IBM and these products. If IBM could open up and provide a way of integrating it seamlessly, without charging more for it, that would make a big difference."
"What needs to be improved in IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is the user experience. It's not optimal. Some screens are a bit clunky. The solution needs to be more user-friendly."
"IBM needs to invest more into the collaboration with other vendors."
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 Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Sentinel, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer. 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.