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."Sentinel is a Microsoft product, so they provide very robust use cases and analytic groups, which are very beneficial for the security team. I also like the ability to integrate data sources into the software for on-premise and cloud-based solutions."
"It's pretty powerful and its performance is pretty good."
"The best feature is that onboarding to the SIM solution is quite easy. If you are using cloud-based solutions, it's just a few clicks to migrate it."
"The UI of Sentinel is very good and easy to use, even for beginners."
"One of the most valuable features is that it creates a kind of a single pane of glass for organizations that already use Microsoft software. So, when they have things like Microsoft 365, it is very easy for them to kind of plug in or enroll those endpoints into the Azure Sentinel service."
"The most valuable feature is the UEBA. It's very easy for a security operations analyst. It has a one-touch analysis where you can search for a particular entity, and you can get a complete overview of that entity or user."
"Sentinel has an intuitive, user-friendly way to visualize the data properly. It gives me a solid overview of all the logs. We get a more detailed view that I can't get from the other SIEM tools. It has some IP and URL-specific allow listing"
"The analytics has a lot of advantages because there are 300 default use cases for rules and we can modify them per our environment. We can create other rules as well. Analytics is a useful feature."
"It is a bit easier to use than other products, such as Splunk or ELK Elasticsearch."
"I think it's a very stable product that provides much more visibility than the other product."
"The interface is good."
"The most valuable features are all the implementations, the plug-ins, and the User Behavior Analytics (UBA)."
"The scalability is very good. It's not a problem."
"I have found the most important features to be the flexibility, tech framework, and disk manager."
"It can analyze event logs, event security, and give a good consult."
"Most valuable features include the granularity of information."
"The solution's Kusto Query Language (KQL) execution time is pretty good."
"The tool is simple to use."
"The most valuable feature of Sentinel is the dashboard."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it provides a central locking system for many event sources."
"The stability is phenomenal and we never had any issues with downtime or even had to restart."
"The most valuable feature is the flexible log for identifying security threats inside an application. Sentinel is very good at this."
"It makes everything easier by automating some tasks and growing with our needs."
"The native integration with out-of-the box format is hassle free and allows data to be used advantageously."
"There is a wider thing called Jupyter Notebooks, which is around the automation side of things. It would be good if there are playbooks that you can utilize without having to have the developer experience to do it in-house. Microsoft could provide more playbooks or more Jupyter Notebooks around MITRE ATT&CK Framework."
"Sentinel provides decent visibility, but it's sometimes a little cumbersome to get to the information I want because there is so much information. I would also like to see more seamless integration between Sentinel and third-party security products."
"Sentinel's reporting is complex and can be more user-friendly."
"If Sentinel had a graphical user interface, it would be easier to use. I would also like it to be more customizable."
"It would be good to have some connectors for third-party SIEM solutions. Many customers are struggling with the integration of Azure Sentinel with their on-premise SIEM. Microsoft is changing the log structure many times a year, which can corrupt a custom integration. It would be good to have some connectors developed by Microsoft or supply vendors, but they are not providing such functionality or tools."
"They need to work with other security vendors. For example, we replaced our email gateway with Symantec, but we couldn't collect these logs with Azure Sentinel. Instead of collecting these logs with Azure Sentinel, we are collecting them on Qradar. We couldn't do it with Sentinel, which is a problem for us."
"They should integrate it with many other software-as-a-service providers and make connectors available so that you don't have to do any sort of log normalization."
"Its implementation could be simpler. It is not really simple or straightforward. It is in the middle. Sometimes, connectors are a little bit complex."
"There should be more opportunity for community kind of distribution where, for example, if there was a zero-day threat targeting companies."
"It is not app based."
"This solution is on-premise and many customers are moving to the cloud base solution."
"IBM Qradar could improve the reporting. The tool is not designed to report. It's a great operational monitoring tool. You put it on a screen and you watch it. If you want to have analytics out of it, that's a whole different story. You're going to need more people and tools. What should be added is reporting and integration into Power BI, into some capability that produces analytical reports from the source data. IBM does not seem to care to add these features."
"There should be easier and wider integration opportunities. There should be more opportunities for integration with CTI info sharing areas. On platforms where you exchange CTI, there should be more visibility connected to what we share, what we can reach, or what options are connected to CTI info sharing. This is one area where they could add value because we cannot integrate it easily with QRadar. If a client has a legacy or already existing solutions for CTI, we cannot ask them to forget it because we cannot guarantee that QRadar is able to deliver everything connected to this area."
"Its architecture is very complicated."
"The initial setup was complex, and it took six months."
"IBM QRadar has a margin for development, for out-of-the-box use cases. It can be enhanced with better support and automate the use cases for that."
"Log source integration with Sentinel needs to be improved."
"There is a need for more flexibility in customization, especially when working with different vendors and platforms."
"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."
"It is an ancient product."
"There is no integration in the web-side of the tool."
"The solution does not allow outsourced authorizations."
"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 rate Sentinel a six out of ten for scalability."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 4th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 198 reviews while Sentinel is ranked 17th 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 ArcSight Logger, whereas Sentinel is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Google Chronicle Suite, Wazuh, 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.