We performed a comparison between Sentinel and SolarWinds Security Event Manager 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 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 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."
"Native integration with Microsoft security products or other Microsoft software is also crucial. For example, we can integrate Sentinel with Office 365 with one click. Other integrations aren't as easy. Sometimes, we have to do it manually."
"If you know how to do KQL (kusto query language) queries, which are how you query the log data inside Sentinel, the information is pretty rich. You can get down to a good level of detail regarding event information or notifications."
"The ability of all these solutions to work together natively is essential. We have an Azure subscription, including Log Analytics. This feature automatically acts as one of the security baselines and detects recommendations because it also integrates with Defender. We can pull the sysadmin logs from Azure. It's all seamless and native."
"Sentinel pricing is good"
"We are able to deploy within half an hour and we only require one person to complete the implementation."
"It has a lot of great features."
"Sentinel gave us logs to tell us what's going right and wrong in your environment so we could secure the network."
"The solution's Kusto Query Language (KQL) execution time is pretty good."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it provides a central locking system for many event sources."
"The most valuable feature of Sentinel is the dashboard."
"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."
"We did previously use a different solution, but SolarWinds is much better. It's easy to interact with SolarWinds. It's easy to operate, easy to configure and is generally easier compared to what we were working with before."
"The most valuable feature of SolarWinds Security Event Manager is the analysis and the knowledge about the incidence that we trace."
"SolarWinds is effective for server, network, and log monitoring. It's also good for IP address management. We also have a patch manager, but we're still working on getting that operational."
"It's extremely easy to deploy."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use for the end user."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the visibility into both attempted and failed logins."
"SolarWinds Security Event Manager has been generally working well."
"It has in-depth monitoring capabilities and an easy way for setting up dashboards. I can expand in various areas, or I can reduce areas. It supports different types of breakdowns, filters, and rules. It is very simple for an out-of-the-box type of product. It doesn't take a lot of time to figure it out, which is unlike some of the solutions that I have looked at. It meets all the aspects."
"The playbook development environment is not as rich as it should be. There are multiple occasions when we face problems while creating the playbook."
"One key area that can be improved is by building a strong integration with our XDR platform."
"Sometimes, it is hard for us to estimate the costs of Microsoft Sentinel."
"The learning curve could be improved. I am still learning it. We were able to implement the basic features to get them up and running, but there are still so many things that I don't know about all its features. They have a lot of features that we have not been able to use or apply. If they could work on reducing the solution's learning curve, that would be good. While there is a training course held by Microsoft to learn more about this solution, there is a cost associated with it."
"Sometimes, we are observing large ingestion delays. We expect logs within 5 minutes, but it takes about 10 to 15 minutes."
"The only thing is sometimes you can have a false positive."
"Its documentation is not so simple. It is easy for somebody who is Microsoft certified or more closely attached to Microsoft solutions. It is not easy for those who are working on open-source platforms. There isn't a central point where everything is documented, and there is no specific training or certification."
"Sentinel's alerts and notifications are not fully optimized for mobile devices. The overall reporting and the analytics processes for the end user should also be improved. Also, the compatibility and availability of data sources and reports are not always perfect."
"The dashboard and customer view should be improved"
"Log source integration with Sentinel needs to be improved."
"It is an ancient product."
"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."
"There is a need for more flexibility in customization, especially when working with different vendors and platforms."
"There is no integration in the web-side of the tool."
"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."
"There are no multiple dashboards which would allow you to see information side-by-side."
"We'd like more customization capabilities."
"The company had to use a third party for the implementation of the solution."
"SolarWinds should improve its correlation capabilities. The correlation does not automatically detect and reduce the events fast enough. You have to manually do a correlation report, which means the tool is not scalable in many ways."
"It can be difficult for users who are inexperienced with the solution."
"The only issue is the pricetag. SolarWinds is a costly solution."
"One of the drawbacks of being so flexible is that it is also a fairly complicated software application to install, configure, and maintain."
"There is no correlation made between log entries, so no threat information is presented."
More SolarWinds Security Event Manager Pricing and Cost Advice →
Sentinel is ranked 17th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 16 reviews while SolarWinds Security Event Manager is ranked 21st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 24 reviews. Sentinel is rated 7.6, while SolarWinds Security Event Manager is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Sentinel writes "An automated solution that helped me detect threats in less than half the time it used to take". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolarWinds Security Event Manager writes "A comprehensive network security with robust technical capabilities, effective threat response, and centralized management". Sentinel is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Google Chronicle Suite, Wazuh and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas SolarWinds Security Event Manager is most compared with ManageEngine Log360, Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Defender XDR and Wazuh. See our Sentinel vs. SolarWinds Security Event Manager 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.