We performed a comparison between Catchpoint and Splunk Enterprise Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The thing I like most is the tech support in this company, because they have 24/7 chat support. We can chat immediately and ask them about an issue and they keep responding. They create tickets on our behalf and respond."
"Catchpoint's customer service and support are valuable."
"The drill-down feature of this product was very good. It allowed us to identify the exact page or area of the site that was causing our customers an issue."
"The most valuable features of Catchpoint are basically the transaction monitors on the API and UI."
"The solution offers three different ways of slicing data to look for abnormalities."
"We really need the API monitoring, as well as client side session monitoring, the global synthetic monitoring, to track the availability of the systems from the customer side."
"Catchpoint is very flexible and also provides logs for troubleshooting purposes. It helps us fix issues within the SLAs signed with the end users. The tool is easy to learn."
"Catchpoint provides a great amount of information."
"Splunk has improved our operations by giving us access to more information and allowing us to deploy more use cases."
"Splunk's schema on demand is incredibly useful. I do not have to worry about what my users will need when we onboard their data."
"Splunk allows us to find insights that we were not able to with traditional BI tools using ETL. It allows us to dig into raw events."
"Splunk has helped improve our company's resilience level."
"The breadth of the data sources that Splunk can ingest data from is broad and deep and it does an exemplary job at handling structured data."
"The search lookups are useful."
"It allows the centralization of data and makes possible new sorts of correlations that were previously impossible using traditional SIEMs such as ArcSight or QRadar."
"It has a rapid response search environment in the event of an incident."
"There's still too much manual involvement in getting customized test configurations out there. It's good, but it still takes a lot of effort. In other words, it's when you need to configure it to collect a specific variable and that kind of thing."
"A room for improvement in Catchpoint is that it lacks an automated page updating feature. My company receives all the alerts and notifications it needs, but the page doesn't update automatically. You need to manually refresh the page, so every five minutes you need to refresh it to see the most updated information. If there's an automated page refresh feature, that would help my company. It's a feature that Grafana has. The page auto-refreshes in Grafana, so you don't have to manually refresh the page. If that feature is implemented in Catchpoint, it'll be useful for the users. Another area for improvement in the tool is you have to do a manual task, for example, when you have a notification for a market, you get a zip code that the user could have entered, but if the zip code is incorrect, you have to manually go into Catchpoint and update that parameter, so that manual step is another area in the tool that needs improvement."
"We would like the script creation feature of this solution to be improved, as it currently requires a complicated manual process to update the scripts."
"The old user version was better, it was more user-friendly."
"Catchpoint can be improved by focusing solely on network monitoring."
"A large selection of nodes are available but it is a challenge to test reliably in China and the Middle East."
"Trending needs improvement. Currently, out-of-the-box, they provide only seven days availability. So, we have to do queries and we have to go into a separate analysis module, we have to run lot of queries to long-term trends."
"There are essentially a lot of quotas. Nobody wants to sit and manually create monitors for someone who uses synthetic monitoring."
"The analytics of Splunk could be improved."
"We had some connections issues with the solution at the beginning."
"The training was mostly sales-focused, like how to monitor your sales. It was hard to then come back from doing the training and try to switch it to a cybersecurity focus because all the training we did was sales oriented. The basic training didn't really touch on any kind of cybersecurity use cases or anything like that. That would have been great to see in the training."
"The threat detection library needs to increase the frequency at which the playbooks are updated."
"I find the graphical options really limited and you don't have enough control over how to display the data that you want to see."
"The prices are complicated as we operate in a small third-world country."
"It works as intended for us, and we are getting everything that we need out of it. If anything, its initial setup can be improved a bit."
"We were inundated with the amount of alerts and alarms that we could get out of it. It is also a resource hog and we didn't have the resources to support it on-prem so we're taking it offline now."
Catchpoint is ranked 5th in Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) with 12 reviews while Splunk Enterprise Security is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 228 reviews. Catchpoint is rated 8.2, while Splunk Enterprise Security is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Catchpoint writes "The UI is well designed, so it's easy to get the visibility you want". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Splunk Enterprise Security writes "It has a drag-and-drop interface, so you don't need to know SQL or Java to construct a query ". Catchpoint is most compared with Dynatrace, ThousandEyes, Datadog, Selenium HQ and AppDynamics, whereas Splunk Enterprise Security is most compared with Wazuh, Dynatrace, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel and Elastic Security. See our Catchpoint vs. Splunk Enterprise Security report.
We monitor all Digital Experience Monitoring (DEM) 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.