We performed a comparison between ArcSight Analytics and Microsoft Defender for Identity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."ArcSight Analytics has improved our system and network policy monitoring."
"The ability to correlate different logs is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The correlation engine is good."
"This solution makes it easy to create use cases, and it is easy to move queries from use cases to the report to the dashboard."
"ArcSight Analytics is used to get a deeper insight and threat analysis about the network."
"The data collection and the integration with different products are valuable features."
"The features I have found most valuable are it capabilities for behavioral analytics and anomaly detection."
"This solution allows us to identify connections for all users."
"The best feature is security monitoring, which detects and investigates suspicious user activities. It can easily detect advanced attacks based on the behavior. The credentials are securely stored, so it reduces the risk of compromise. It will monitor user behavior based on artificial intelligence to protect the identities in your organization. It will even help secure the on-premise Active Directory. It syncs from the cloud to on-premise, and on-premise modifications will be reflected in the cloud."
"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."
"This solution has advanced a lot over the last few years."
"Microsoft Defender for Identity provides excellent visibility into threats by leveraging real-time analytics and data intelligence."
"Defender for Identity has not affected the end-user experience."
"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."
"It automates routine testing and helps automate the finding of high-value alerts."
"The basic security monitoring at its core feature is the most valuable aspect. But also the investigative parts, the historical logging of events over the network are extremely interesting because it gives an in-depth insight into the history of account activity that is really easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to export."
"ArcSight's features that can be improved include anything related to its visualization capabilities and user friendliness."
"ArcSight is not a user-friendly solution and the interface needs to be improved."
"The reporting and the way it is worded needs to be improved in future releases. The dashboards are quite poorly designed."
"There is a GUI, but it is not complete and lacks functionality that needs to be performed using the console."
"Their support team could be better."
"It needs more user analytics and aggregation user queries. And it's slow. When you query over ArcSight, it is very slow."
"I faced stability issues with Windows Operating System. The installed connectors hang if they remain idle for a long period of time."
"Inactive connections from servers, which are upgraded or downgraded within a VM, should be automatically revoked."
"I would like to be able to do remediation from the platform because it is just a scanner right now. If you onboard a device, it shows you what is happening, but you can't use it to fix things. You need to go into the system to fix it instead."
"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."
"Defender for Identity gives us visibility, but we often get false positives from Azure that take us down the garden path. We go through 30 incidents each day and most of those are false positives or benign positive alerts. Occasionally, we get true positive alerts."
"We observe a lot of false positives. Sometimes, when we go for a coffee break, we lock our screens. Locking the screen has a separate Windows event ID and sometimes I see it is detected as a failed login."
"Microsoft should look at what competing vendors like CrowdStrike and Broadcom are doing and incorporate those features into Sentinel and Defender. At the same time, I think the intelligence inside the product is improving fast. They should incorporate more zero-trust and hybrid trust approaches. They need to build up threat intelligence based on threats and methods used in attacks on other companies."
"And when you are working in a priority IP address, Identity is not able to know that those IPs are from the company. It sees that the IPs are from Taiwan or from Hong Kong or from India, even though they are internal IPs, resulting in a lot of false positives."
"The solution could be better at using group-managed access and they could replace it with broad-based access controls."
"An area for improvement is the administrative interface. It's basic compared to other administrative centers. They could make it more user-friendly and easier to navigate."
More Microsoft Defender for Identity Pricing and Cost Advice →
ArcSight Analytics is ranked 16th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 15 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Identity is ranked 1st in Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) with 13 reviews. ArcSight Analytics is rated 7.0, while Microsoft Defender for Identity is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of ArcSight Analytics writes "It has improved our system and network policy monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Identity writes "Offers robust protection from insider threats, but the customer support is poor". ArcSight Analytics is most compared with Securonix UEBA, whereas Microsoft Defender for Identity is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID Protection, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Entra Verified ID, Splunk User Behavior Analytics and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint. See our ArcSight Analytics vs. Microsoft Defender for Identity report.
We monitor all User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) 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.
