We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Sentinel based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."There are a lot of things you can explore as a user. You can even go and actively hunt for threats. You can go on the offensive rather than on the defensive."
"The analytic rule is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is the performance because unlike legacy SIEMs that were on-premises, it does not require as much maintenance."
"We didn't have anything similar. So, it really provides value from the incidents and automation point of view. The overview of the security fabric is most valuable."
"The Log analytics are useful."
"Free ingestion for Azure logs (with E5 licence)"
"The most valuable feature is the alert notifications, which are categorized by severity levels: informational, low, medium, and high."
"Microsoft Sentinel enables you to ingest data from the entire ecosystem and that connection of data helps you to monitor critical resources and to know what's happening in the environment."
"One very useful feature is the plug-in offering that allows you to integrate it with other solutions, such as integrating it with plug-ins like Scout, Carbon Black, and the rest."
"The most valuable thing about QRadar is that you have a single window into your network, SIEM, network flows, and risk management of your assets. If you use Splunk, for instance, then you still need a full packet capture solution, whereas the full packet capture solution is integrated within QRadar. Its application ecosystem makes it very powerful in terms of doing analysis."
"I like the graphical interface. It's so good and easy."
"This solution has allowed us to correlate logs from multiple sources."
"I think it's a very stable product that provides much more visibility than the other product."
"No doubt about it, the solution is extremely stable."
"It integrates very easily with other solutions. The solution is flexible. We can add anything to it, as it is a good companion to other tools."
"The most valuable features would have to be the products' ability to customize vulnerability management settings."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible log for identifying security threats inside an application. Sentinel is very good at this."
"The tool is simple to use."
"The most valuable feature of Sentinel is the dashboard."
"The solution's Kusto Query Language (KQL) execution time is pretty good."
"The solution lets us get all the logs properly and regularly monitor customer infrastructure."
"One of the most valuable features is the business intelligence engine. It's very important because it keeps track of everything that's happening and alerts us if something is different than expected. The first time I used it, I was shocked at how well it performed. Another valuable feature that I think makes this product worth the price you pay for it is that it connects to basically every system that provides some form of logging, and it's very easy to set up what triggers this."
"Sentinel gave us logs to tell us what's going right and wrong in your environment so we could secure the network."
"The native integration with out-of-the box format is hassle free and allows data to be used advantageously."
"If Sentinel had a graphical user interface, it would be easier to use. I would also like it to be more customizable."
"There is some relatively advanced knowledge that you have to have to properly leverage Sentinel's full capabilities. I'm thinking about things like the creation of workbooks, how you do threat-hunting, and the kinds of notifications you're getting... It takes time for people to ramp up on that and develop a familiarity or expertise with it."
"Everyone has their favorites. There is always room for improvement, and everybody will say, "I wish you could do this for me or that for me." It is a personal thing based on how you use the tool. I do not necessarily have those thoughts, and they are probably not really valuable because they are unique to the context of the user, but broadly, where it can continue to improve is by adding more connectors to more systems."
"The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning."
"Add more out-of-the-box connectors with other SaaS platforms/applications."
"Documentation is the main thing that could be improved. In terms of product usage, the documentation is pretty good, but I'd like a lot more documentation on Kusto Query Language."
"We'd like to see more connectors."
"The data connectors for third-party tools could be improved, as some aren't available in Sentinel. They need to be available in the data connector panel."
"IBM needs to invest more into the collaboration with other vendors."
"IBM QRadar could improve the plugins and threat detection."
"The custom rules could be simplified more or it should be possible to use a different language, other than the ones that the solution is already using. They should add other languages into the mix."
"IBM is going through some problems with its resources currently making its support response time slow."
"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."
"The quoting and the dashboard session could be improved. It should be more user-friendly."
"There is a shortage of skilled individuals with knowledge about the solution. There is training required."
"There was some complexity in the initial setup due to bandwidth issues."
"I rate Sentinel a six out of ten for scalability."
"This product's connection to certain types of cloud systems could be improved. We can do Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, but there are a lot of other things happening in the cloud that we do not connect well enough to. This product could be improved with better connection to cloud-based solutions."
"Creating a drag-and-drop dashboard or workbook in Sentinel is a little more complex compared to other tools like LogRhythm and IBM QRadar."
"I would like to see a better reporting work structure on the dashboard."
"There is a need for more flexibility in customization, especially when working with different vendors and platforms."
"The dashboard and customer view should be improved"
"It is an ancient product."
"Log source integration with Sentinel needs to be improved."
IBM Security QRadar is a security and analytics platform designed to defend against threats and scale security operations.
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 4th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 197 reviews while Sentinel is ranked 18th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 16 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Sentinel is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sentinel writes "An automated solution that helped me detect threats in less than half the time it used to take". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM, Elastic Security and Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, whereas Sentinel is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, Google Chronicle Suite, LogRhythm SIEM and ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM). See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Sentinel report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.