We performed a comparison between AWS Security Hub and Elastic Security 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."The most valuable features in my experience are the UEBA, LDAP, the threat scheduler, and integration with third-party straight perform like the MISP."
"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."
"Having your logs put all in one place with machine learning working on those logs is a good feature. I don't need to start thinking, "Where are my logs?" My logs are in a centralized repository, like Log Analytics, which is why you can't use Sentinel without Log Analytics. Having all those logs in one place is an advantage."
"Previously, it was a little bit difficult to find where an incident came from, including which IP address and which country. So in Sentinel, it's very easy to find where the incident came from since we can easily get the information from the dashboard, after which we take action quickly."
"It has basic out-of-the-box integrations with multiple log sources."
"Microsoft Sentinel provides the capability to integrate different log sources. On top of having several data connectors in place, you can also do integration with a threat intelligence platform to enhance and enrich the data that's available. You can collect as many logs and build all the use cases."
"The dashboard that allows me to view all the incidents is the most valuable feature."
"The automation rules and playbooks are the most useful that I've seen. A number of other places segregate the automation and playbook as separate tools, whereas Microsoft is a SIEM and SOAR tool in one."
"Very good at detection and providing real-time alerts."
"The most valuable feature of AWS Security Hub is the ability to track when monitoring is not enabled on any of my resources."
"The best feature of AWS Security Hub is that you can get compliance or your cloud's current security posture."
"Currently, our organization utilizes AWS for various purposes, including SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service), and hosting applications in the cloud. We develop our applications and use AWS services as a platform for basic functions and secondary development needs. Additionally, we rely on PaaS for accounting services. Approximately, 50% of our applications are hosted in the cloud environment, making it a significant part of our current setup."
"I like that AWS Security Hub currently has several good features, around four or five. The technical support for AWS Security Hub is also responsive."
"The solution shows us our compliance score."
"AWS Security Hub has very good integration features. It allows for AWS native services integration, and it helps us to integrate some of the services outside of AWS. They have partners, such as Amazon Preferred Network Partners (APN). If you have different security tools around APN, we can integrate those findings with AWS Security Hub reducing the need to refer to different portals or different UIs. You can have AWS Security Hub act as a single common go-to dashboard."
"Cloudposse is a valuable feature as it guarantees my security."
"Elastic has a lot of beats, such as Winlogbeat and Filebeat. Beats are the agents that have to be installed on the terminals to send the data. When we install beats or Elastic agents on every terminal, they don't overload the terminals. In other SIEM solutions such as Splunk or QRadar, when beats or agents are installed on endpoints, they are very heavy for the terminals. They consume a lot of power of the terminals, whereas Elastic agents hardly consume any power and don't overload the terminals."
"The most valuable thing is that this solution is widely used for work management and research. It's easy to jump into the security use case with the same technology."
"The most valuable feature for me is Discover."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"It is the best open-source product for people working in SO, managing and analyzing logs."
"It is an extremely stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The solution has a good community surrounding it for lots of helpful documentation for troubleshooting purposes."
"It is very quick to react. I can set it to check anomalies or suspicious behavior every 30 seconds. It is very fast."
"Microsoft Sentinel is relatively expensive, and its cost should be improved."
"The dashboards can be improved. Creating dashboards is very easy, but the visualizations are not as good as Microsoft Power BI. People who are using Microsoft Power BI do not like Sentinel's dashboards."
"The playbook is a bit difficult and could be improved."
"Multi-tenancy, in my opinion, needs to be improved. I believe it can do better as a managed service provider."
"Sentinel still has some anomalies. For example, sometimes when we write a query for log analysis with KQL, it doesn't give us the data in a proper way... Also, the fields or columns could be improved. Sometimes, it is not giving the desired results and there is a blank field."
"Azure Sentinel will be directly competing with tools such as Splunk or Qradar. These are very established kinds of a product that have been around for the last seven, eight years or more."
"Microsoft Sentinel should provide an alternative query language to KQL for users who lack KQL expertise."
"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."
"Adding SIEM features would be beneficial because of the limited customization of AWS Security Hub."
"Whenever my team gets some alarms from the central team, my team needs to initiate whether it's a real or false trigger. The central team needs to keep adjusting to the parameters or at least the concerned IPs, whether it's really from the company's pool of IPs, so the trigger process can be improved. In the next release of AWS Security Hub, I'd like a better dashboard that could result in better alert visibility."
"The user interface, graphs, and dashboards of the solution could improve in the future. They are not very sophisticated and could use an update."
"Although AWS Security Hub does a periodic scan of your overall infrastructure, it doesn't do it in real time."
"AWS Security Hub's configuration and integration are areas where it lacks and needs to improve."
"The solution will only give you insight if you have configure rule enabled. It should work more like Prisma Cloud and Dome9 which have a better approach."
"Security needs to be measured based on their own criteria. We can't add custom criteria specific to our organization. For example, having an S3 bucket publicly available might be flagged as a critical alert, but it might not be critical in a sandbox environment. So, it gets flagged as critical, which becomes a false positive. So, customization options and creating custom dashboards would be areas for improvement."
"It is not flexible for multi-cloud environments."
"It would be better if Elastic Security had less storage for data. My customers do not like this. Other vendors have local support in different countries, but Elastic Security doesn't. I would like to have Operational Technology (OT) security in the next release."
"In terms of what could be improved with Elastic, in some use cases, especially on the advanced level, they are not ready made, so you'll have to write some scripts."
"There should be a simulation environment to check whether my Elastic implementation is functioning perfectly fine. Other solutions have their own Android and iOS applications that I can install on my mobile so that I am continuously connected to the SIEM."
"An area for improvement in Elastic Security is the pricing. It could be better. Right now, when you increase the volume of logs to be collected, the price also increases a lot."
"Technical support could respond faster."
"With Elastic Security, the challenge arises from the fact that there is a learning curve in relation to queries and understanding the query language provided to extract usable data."
"The problem with ELK is it's difficult to administer. When you have a problem, it can be very, very difficult to rebuild indexes."
"Elastic Security could improve the documentation. It would help if they were more simple and clean."
AWS Security Hub is ranked 8th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 17 reviews while Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 59 reviews. AWS Security Hub is rated 7.6, while Elastic Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AWS Security Hub writes "A centralized dashboard that enables efficient monitoring and management of possible security issues". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". AWS Security Hub is most compared with Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, Wiz, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Google Chronicle Suite, whereas Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our AWS Security Hub vs. Elastic Security report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors and best Security Orchestration Automation and Response (SOAR) 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.
