We performed a comparison between ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) and Seceon Open Threat Management Platform 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."We use ArcSight ESM for log analysis and security alerts. It warns us of threats and then helps us conduct a forensic investigation of a cyber attack or internal incident after it happens."
"What I found most valuable in ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is its good integration with third-party products. The solution also has good core capabilities."
"The reports that we are from getting from ArcSight are very valuable. The reporting in ArcSight is good. Our regulators ask us for the reports on a regular basis, and we have been able to provide the required data. Its overall functionality in terms of log analysis and the speed at which it does that is also valuable. It is very quick. Whatever alerts we had configured were extremely fast. We immediately get alerts when there is unauthorized access or unknown access, or even positive access. This is where we found the difference between ArcSight and other solutions."
"Some of the benefits of using this solution are rapid correlation and near-time response on alerts."
"The filters and the ability to do what you want are the most valuable features. There is nothing that you cannot do in this solution. It has all the features, which makes it very dynamic."
"The out-of-the-box rules that help us configure functioning rules within the environment are valuable."
"Stable solution with good customer service support."
"The most important feature is ArcSight's event correlation capabilities. It's powerful and easy. I also like the flex connector capability. It's easy to develop a new connector that isn't fully supported out of the box. For example, say you created a solution internally that's completely different, and it's not unsupported by the solution. You can write your own connector using the flex connector."
"The most valuable features are behaviour analytics, threat intelligence, endpoint detection, and response features."
"We only recently started using Seceon, so we aren't taking advantage of all its features yet. We have enabled some proactive alerts about utilization and bottlenecks from high traffic."
"I like that it's an AI-based platform. The most valuable feature is that it's a comprehensive solution. Most tools in the marketplace are comprised of miscellaneous items. They fail to provide real-time remediation features. However, with Seceon Open Threat Management Platform, anything you can think of in cybersecurity, like auto-remediation, real-time response, and even on-premise components, is available in a single platform. So, it's perfect for finance and healthcare who don't want to share their data with a third party like the cloud. You can have this on-premise as well. So, the expenditure will be lower as less human intervention is required."
"The solution is very cost-effective compared to Splunk and LogRhythm."
"The main thing is the value proposition. It is one of the most sophisticated yet affordable solutions that I've come across. It is also one of the easiest-to-manage yet comprehensive solutions for a SOC analyst. Its customizations are really good, and it has a lot of integrations. It is multi-tenant and very fast to onboard. Its stability is 100%. We've never had an outage with it. It doesn't require extensive hardware resources. Its level of support is also very good. They have a very responsive technical team."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its artificial intelligence."
"You can use different solutions in a single platform which is very easy and attractive for customers."
"Could benefit from a more modern interface."
"The security area has room for improvement."
"Its search part can be improved. When I go to the console and search for a few logs or something else, it takes a lot of time. When I try to search for three days or one week, it takes too much time. This is a major area of improvement. I wanted them to include features like SOAR, threat intelligence, and automation, and they seem to have included all these features in version 7.3 or 7.4."
"The initial setup is very complex. We had to architect a deployment which allowed us to incorporate an ever growing number of customers into our hosted instance of ArcSight."
"The way that scaling is set up isn't very cost-effective."
"Deployment typology could be improved. Difficult to scale across all the different lines of businesses."
"The weakness in this system comes about because, with so many different logs, it is possible that the security analyst will lose information."
"We have pricing issues. ArcSight ESM may not be the most user-friendly option, and its interface is quite traditional. However, despite these aspects, we find it a good cybersecurity solution. It needs to improve the dashboards, documentation, and support as well."
"The SOP they provided wasn't great. They offered training over Sherp Virtualization, and the Seceon leadership visited our location to explain everything in detail, but the documentation and training could be better. It isn't as effective as it could be. There's some room for improvement there."
"It is a standalone solution now. They need to make it into a cloud-based subscription model. It needs more compatibility for co-managed solutions. It can also have more threats and deeper integration with Microsoft."
"We are at the client’s end, offering services. They don’t know about security rules and benchmarks. We are working on the discovery and remediation but we don’t really have the intelligence that was available while working with other tools. Human working is also very essential for the solution. The automatic session is impossible to play since it needs to touch Redfin for further analysis. No one has breached our clients."
"It would be better if they offered global coverage."
"The management console could use some enhancements."
"It would be ideal with the processing was more manageable. Not many customers are willing to have a dedicated server with two CPUs and one TB of memory. The cost of this is huge for a smaller organization."
"The product should improve the triggering rate."
"For future releases, integrating incident response tools and improving communication on incident reporting could be beneficial."
More ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
More Seceon Open Threat Management Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is ranked 12th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 93 reviews while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is ranked 21st in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 10 reviews. ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is rated 7.8, while Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) writes "Allows for monitoring logs according to industry standards within ESM but has a total capacity capped at 12 TB, limiting real-time data retention periods". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Seceon Open Threat Management Platform writes "Has the ability to categorize alerts and reporting dashboards are useful". ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, ArcSight Intelligence, Trellix ESM, IBM Security QRadar and Elastic Security, whereas Seceon Open Threat Management Platform is most compared with IBM Security QRadar, Securonix Next-Gen SIEM, Fortinet FortiSIEM and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) vs. Seceon Open Threat Management Platform 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.
