We performed a comparison between Devo and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 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 thing that Devo does better than other solutions is to give me the ability to write queries that look at multiple data sources and run fast. Most SIEMs don't do that. And I can do that by creating entity-based queries. Let's say I have a table which has Okta, a table which has G Suite, a table which has endpoint telemetry, and I have a table which has DNS telemetry. I can write a query that says, 'Join all these things together on IP, and where the IP matches in all these tables, return to me that subset of data, within these time windows.' I can break it down that way."
"Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."
"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."
"The alerting is much better than I anticipated. We don't get as many alerts as I thought we would, but that nobody's fault, it's just the way it is."
"The most useful feature for us, because of some of the issues we had previously, was the simplicity of log integrations. It's much easier with this platform to integrate log sources that might not have standard logging and things like that."
"Devo provides a multi-tenant, cloud-native architecture. This is critical for managed service provider environments or multinational organizations who may have subsidiaries globally. It gives organizations a way to consolidate their data in a single accessible location, yet keep the data separate. This allows for global views and/or isolated views restricted by access controls by company or business unit."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"The strength of Devo is not only in that it is pretty intuitive, but it gives you the flexibility and creativity to merge feeds. The prime examples would be using the synthesis or union tables that give you phenomenal capabilities... The ability to use a synthesis or union table to combine all those feeds and make heads or tails of what's going on, and link it to go down a thread, is functionality that I hadn't seen before."
"The user interface is good and it is quite easy to use."
"We have the most data visibility."
"One of the most valuable features is the ability to analyze data in real-time using AR features to pull data from the industrial DB. You can know what is going on and see in milliseconds where the network is underperforming."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is to be able to see everything in our network in a single task. A single menu and the graphical bar charts that it provides to give insights are very useful. It also gives very good metrics on bandwidth utilization, CPU, and device performance. It is very simple and easy to use as well."
"The event handling solution in the platform is very good and useful."
"The scalability is good. It is also good in the cluster nodes. You can make multiple FortiAnalyzer clusters groups, and you can distribute the logs between these FortiAnalyzer nodes. In other words, you can expand the scale."
"The traffic log information we receive from Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is valuable."
"The initial setup is easy, and the deployment is fast."
"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."
"There are some issues from an availability and functionality standpoint, meaning the tool is somewhat slow. There were some slow response periods over the past six to nine months, though it has yet to impact us terribly as we are a relatively small shop. We've noticed it, however, so Devo could improve the responsiveness."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"Their documentation could be better. They are growing quickly and need to have someone focused on tech writing to ensure that all the different updates, how to use them, and all the new features and functionality are properly documented."
"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."
"The overall performance of extraction could be a lot faster, but that's a common problem in this space in general. Also, the stock or default alerting and detecting options could definitely be broader and more all-encompassing. The fact that they're not is why we had to write all our own alerts."
"The biggest area with room for improvement in Devo is the Security Operations module that just isn't there yet. That goes back to building out how they're going to do content and larger correlation and aggregation of data across multiple things, as well as natively ingesting CTI to create rule sets."
"The reports are good, but they are over-summarized."
"Our organization wants the solution to be able to provide us access to a centralized dashboard that displays a log view for all firewalls under Fortinet FortiAnalyzer."
"The solution could improve by allowing the ability to search logs in integrated solutions."
"The following could be better: operation and maintenance, high-availability architecture, and management link embedded in the transmission link."
"It would be good if the product could provide data about the websites users visit."
"The technical support is not very reliable."
"They could always improve the interface and the user experience."
"I don't find Fortinet FortiAnalyzer to be as robust as Check Point Security Management."
Devo is ranked 17th in Log Management with 21 reviews while Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is ranked 8th in Log Management with 81 reviews. Devo is rated 8.4, while Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Devo writes "Keeps 400 days of hot data, covers our cloud products, and has a high ingestion rate and super easy log integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiAnalyzer writes "We can automate event-based handling solutions, is stable, and is great for heavy traffic". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Sentinel, LogRhythm SIEM and Wazuh, whereas Fortinet FortiAnalyzer is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Graylog, Grafana Loki and LogRhythm SIEM. See our Devo vs. Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 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.
