IBM Security QRadar Reviews

We utilize the product for our Security Operations Center operations. Additionally, we extend its use to our customers, employing it for tasks such as threat hunting, investigation, and triage analysis.

The tool's most valuable feature is log source management. It enables us to connect to various log sources, including content, authentications, or other customized integrations. These integrations can be tailored for use with other platforms that don’t already have built-in IBM add-ons.

Its scalability is also important. It is also compatible with ISO 27001, DSS API, and various certifications.

As part of our security infrastructure, this tool excels in detecting a wide range of attacks. Its responsiveness surpasses that of alternative solutions. Moreover, the user-friendly interface greatly benefits our analysts. The product is helpful in anomaly detection scenarios.

Additionally, we leverage out-of-the-box content and libraries within the IBM ecosystem. Its user behavior analysis helps us to ensure that our customers are protected. 

Correlation plays a pivotal role in our security strategy. It helps us to analyze logs from different sources. This process helps to correlate logs from endpoints. 

Certain updates—especially when using Azure—don't apply directly. Our engineering team must invest additional effort to implement these updates. However, the tool's cloud-based version poses no issues. However, upgrading the product can sometimes be challenging for on-premises instances.

Our current query language (KQL) serves its purpose, but there's room for improvement. Consider introducing a more human-friendly language to streamline analyst training. Analysts could then express queries in a manner akin to human language. This change would expedite processes, making it easier for new analysts to adapt.

I have been working with the product for five years. 

I rate the tool's scalability an eight to nine out of ten. 

Troubleshooting delays have been a recurring challenge. Occasionally, responses take two to three days, leading to escalations. While their website’s knowledge base is commendable, troubleshooting scenarios demand more time. My observation is that they may be understaffed.

Neutral

My company has customers using Splunk and Chronicle SIEM. When comparing Splunk and IBM Security QRadar, they indeed offer similar features, but their business models differ. Chronicle SIEM predominantly operates in the cloud. However, we cannot offer the cloud model if a customer prefers an on-premises solution.

Splunk and IBM Security QRadar both cater to diverse deployment preferences. Splunk boasts a slightly more robust correlation engine than IBM Security QRadar. Splunk tends to be marginally more expensive than IBM Security QRadar.

The number of log sources significantly impacts deployment complexity. The process becomes more complicated for environments with 50 log sources compared to those with fewer sources (e.g., 20 or 10).

Each log source requires a connection to IBM, a task that can take several days or hours, depending on its complexity.

On average, the entire deployment process spans six to eight weeks.

The tool's on-premise version is expensive. However, it is cheaper than Splunk. The hybrid model offers shared instances for customers, which is not expensive. Customers with a limited budget can opt for it. You can get premium support with licenses. However, if you need customized integration, you need to buy it. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

The most valuable features currently are the security behaviors and pdf files.

I would like to see more integration in place after the security lock.

I have been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for a couple of years now.

The product is very stable.

The initial setup was straightforward and took three to four months to deploy.

We used a vendor team to assist us in the process of deployment.

I would rate IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics an eight out of ten.

I am a Product Manager. I am managing the inventory and the logs. For R&D purposes, we downloaded various SIEM solutions from the internet to analyze their performance, and QRadar was one of them. I downloaded the Community Edition of QRadar to check its capabilities and see how to integrate various log sources in our network. It is in my lab, and I have tested it with a few hardware devices and a few computers and servers.

What I like the most about it is that you can very easily install and configure it. As compared to other SIEM solutions, for which you need to know and do a lot more to prepare your SIEM environment, QRadar is much simpler to install and configure. There are various options in the Admin console. In the Admin tab, you can design dashboards and view various graphs. It has a lot of attractive features, and you don't need to configure everything on your own.

I have noticed a few things while working on this. After the restart of the server, sometimes, the services misbehave, and you need to manually start or restart the service. I have seen that specifically with the Tomcat service. 

Sometimes, when you click on log sources, instead of opening the log source extension, it redirects you over the internet. 

There are two types of dashboards in QRadar. One is the conventional or old one, and the other one is Pulse. The Pulse dashboard is better, but we would like to have more options in the dashboard.

Additionally, if possible, there should be a single product for SIEM and SOAR. Instead of having QRadar and Resilient separately, there should be a combined solution to benefit from both. Furthermore, there should be a built-in mechanism to configure it in the cluster mode and high availability mode.

I tested this product in the last two, three months. It is not implemented in our company.

Its installation is very simple. You can install it and configure it very easily.

We are looking at implementing a SIEM solution, and currently, we're comparing various commercial and open-source SIEM solutions. We have tested Wazuh, which is an open-source SIEM solution, but we have not finalized anything.

I would rate it a seven out of 10. It is good, but when a product doesn't behave in a good manner, it creates confusion. Its behavior isn't consistent.

• The ability to correlate data across our global enterprise in near real time
• The ability to integrate a lot of third-party solutions
• The machine learning pieces with Watson, indicators of compromise, and utilizing that across the value stream

I look at the solution as the best-of-the-breed product. The fact that it can work with what everybody else is doing in the cyber landscape is really what gives it the edge.

The solution has improved the efficiency of our security team. These improvements prevent the need for more proactive security activities.

The improvements did not reduce our staff. It's funny, because IBM keeps on having this conversation about staff headcount. It probably sounds good to senior leadership, like to a CIO. The reality is that nobody's looking to decrease the number of staff who they are hiring.

We're looking at refocusing those resources and energy on being able to do additional, higher-value activities. It's more of the case that I don't need as many junior resources. I can focus on some of the things that are a little bit more important.

Our equipment collects billions of pieces of data. We're 100,000-plus EPS per second. The daily list of required investigations for the offenses is manageable.

We've had incidents in our environment. How long it takes QRadar to detect them is always a function of the rules being correlated, the people watching them, and pieces of that nature. I'd say it's in real time. The question is, when it comes to tuning, we want to know if it was tuned appropriately, so it's not lost in the pile of needles.

Room for improvement is more in relation to a lot of the features, the automation of incidents themselves, and being able to automate workflow responses.

Overall, I love the product. IBM usually puts good resources and talent behind things. What they fail to do is to bring all the security together and make sure everything inter-operates and creates one pane of glass.

Actually, I don’t want to say "one pane of glass" because we have seen other vendors do that. They fail miserably because they do not understand where people are coming from.

In terms of some of the right-click functionality that is within QRadar, it should work automatically for all the other IBM products. It shouldn't be something that customers develop. There are pieces in which they have to step back and get some of the foundational pieces.

There are pieces that I feel that IBM should do better. They own Guardium, they own AppScan, and they own some of these other pieces of the security infrastructure that need to relate to QRadar or to Watson. It's the foundational pieces that I feel they need some focus on.

Let's do some of the basics really well. I'm looking at it from owning 50 or 60 different security products across a global organization.

They keep on adding products based on a simple feature set that they can do real well, but they can't integrate them into the rest of the security economy. It doesn't make sense to keep on buying products like that. Whether it's IBM or others, there are companies in the endpoint space that are taking over because they're saying, "Hey, we're going to do everything across your gamut of security needs."

IBM needs to look at that and how they are going to integrate across all of the security products and have them work together.

We have been using this solution for four years.

The stability is good.

The scalability is great.

We don't really use technical support. We're part of some of the engineering and development behind it and we work with a lot of the backend engineers.

Once in a while, we may put something in PMR but most of the time, we are working with the engineers themselves to figure out a solution. They are not really tech support issues.

We have used other solutions, but that was years ago. We've had QRadar for four years. Before that, it was the Symantec solution. The landscape for SIEM has changed progressively over the years.

You're not even talking about the same set of requirements around those things. We just needed to upgrade. We needed the speed, the flexibility, and we needed the correlation building block pieces of it.

I was involved in the initial setup. We are an advanced user of QRadar. While the initial setup was not hard for us, it is a lot more complex where we are right now. It works with integrating some of other IBM products into QRadar, and there's work that needs to be done there to make it seamless.

We were able to be operational in a matter of weeks or months, which is not a long time.

When picking a vendor, the most important thing is partnership.

I honestly have nothing but good things to say about the IBM relationship that we have related to QRadar.

Partnership is going be important. Having the right skillset from an engineering standpoint is important to ensure that you don't set up things backwards. You have a high probability of doing it. This is one of those pieces where IBM doesn't “dummify” the solution for you.

On one side for my senior engineers, they don't want it “dummified” because they need to do it. On the other side of it, there are some aspects that don’t need to be this complex.

For the SMB market, those are some of the areas where I counsel people and say they need to get these types of solutions and do these types of processes. Selling something like QRadar to them becomes a little bit more of a burden because of that complexity. It's like a compliance check mark.

The most valuable features are its ease of use and that it provides good return on investments. It's the best solution out there, in my opinion.

It brings down the time for our incident handlers to find incidents within our environment, to track down new threats and to keep them gainfully employed, by finding the new problems that we see.

I'm not really sure in regards to any additional features, because everything I've seen on the roadmap looks good. So, I'm pretty happy with that.

There is always scope for improvement. The QRadar WinCollect feature needs to be improved. The Windows Log collection is sort of problematic and needs to work better.

A little bit more improvement needs to be brought about in the Watson integration and I still need to see how that works. A little more improvement can be brought about in the User Behavior Analytics and Network Analytics. That would be great.

We've had no issues with its stability or scalability.

The technical support is very good. After the Q1 Labs integration into IBM, they kept the same people. I'm a long-time user and I keep talking to the same people year after year.

It's worth the cost. There are a lot of other options out there that are way more expensive, and that may be better in certain areas, but in my opinion, the overall best solution is QRadar.

First, make sure that it's sized right and read all the manuals, before you do it.

Interoperability with other products is what I look for in a vendor. An open API is the big thing. I want be able to make sure that if I buy something, it will be able to talk with other products. I won't need to keep going down the same path, i.e., if I buy company X, I have to buy company X products all the way; otherwise, they won't talk to each other. Being able to talk with other products really makes a difference.

The tool helps with infrastructure, application, and network monitoring. 

There are areas in IBM Security QRadar that could benefit from improvement. Its ability to customize knowledge for specific purposes could be enhanced. Also, it lacks clarity in presenting details. It is also difficult to see the reports. 

I have been using the product for a year. 

The tool's technical support is good. 

Neutral

Implementing IBM Security QRadar is not overly complex. 

The product is expensive. We have purchased the perpetual license, but we pay for the support. 

I rate the tool a seven out of ten. It is a tough product. 

My use case for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is to consolidate all the logs and events from a different tool so that I can see the alerts from that other tool on the dashboard.

My company connects the Windows event logs to the Xfinity router deployed on the main server, but I have to make some configurations to detect activities.

My team is working on reinforcing IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics features since the solution has not been used for a while because there's a new generation of engineers in my company. My team has to reconfigure almost every screen, including IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics.

What's most valuable in IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is its higher availability than other tools. It consolidates all alerts and detections from the other tools, but my team has to check each tool. As my company lacks the manpower to do that, my team has to do monitoring while working on making each function clear.

As a product, IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics does everything mentioned on the datasheet for my company's version. Still, compatibility is a problem because my company needs to use an updated version of the tool. That version doesn't integrate with many new-generation tools, so this is an area for improvement.

You can scale IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics, but it has room for improvement.

I've been using IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics for years.

IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics has been stable, and my team has made no significant changes since 2015. The team is working on utilizing it most efficiently.

The scalability of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is a six out of ten.

My company doesn't get support from IBM because it's on a perpetual usage type of contract. My team can configure IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics but cannot contact IBM for help.

When I used to get technical support for IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics, I'd say it was a seven out of ten.

The version of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics, which my company uses, is a little outdated from 2013. That version doesn't have the log collection feature.

My rating for the version of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics I'm using is a seven overall.