We performed a comparison between Grafana Loki and IBM Security QRadar based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Grafana Loki is the dashboards which are really simple to create."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the tool's GUI. The solution's GUI is very user-friendly."
"The solution's stability has never been a problem. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten."
"The best feature of Grafana Loki is that it integrates well with our other tool."
"Loki also utilizes the same service discovery mechanism as used by Prometheus. So, whatever labeled metadata you see in Prometheus, you have the exact same metadata in the Loki system. Given this level of intricacy and the attempt to address these challenges, I firmly believe that Loki deserves praise for the work."
"We are using Grafana Loki as a database for real-time metrics."
"I appreciate the capability to process logs from microservices and seamlessly integrate them into Grafana."
"The log collection feature is good and the solution is easily understandable. v"
"Most valuable features include the granularity of information."
"It is really helpful to us from the compliance point of view."
"Providing real-time visibility for threat detection and prioritization - QRadar SIEM provides contextual and actionable surveillance across the entire IT infrastructure."
"There are a lot of features in QRadar. App Exchange is the most valuable feature. User behavior analytics (UBA) is also a very good feature. Watson is also there, but we are not currently using Watson. It is versatile and quite easy. It also has an all-in-one-box feature and good integration with AWS."
"It's user-friendly when compared to other products."
"Senses, tracks, and links significant incidents and threats."
"There are more than 120 extensions in QRadar, which are easy to install and configure. These can improve your analysis of events."
"We can easily monitor many things using this tool."
"The correlation of requests is not simple in Grafana Loki and can be improved."
"We encountered certain limitations when it came to alerting, particularly when dealing with specific data sources."
"We had a well-structured dashboard with a functional query. However, an issue arose when the Kubernetes pod restarted. The statistics from our Grafana query would reset, dropping to zero and starting anew. This was particularly noticeable with linear graphs, which are expected to show consistent growth."
"The solution has shortcomings regarding security monitoring-oriented features that need improvement."
"There is a need for some change in the alerting types of the product. In short, a few changes in the alert area are needed due to minor shortcomings."
"Visualization-wise, Grafana Loki's dashboard looks a little outdated compared to other open-source visualization tools like Chronograf."
"The solution's scalability depends on the team managing the Grafana instance."
"My main concern is the recommended production-grade setup. They suggest using tools like Tanka or Jsonnet. They should simplify the process to increase adoption."
"We have had problems with networking."
"The solution can be improved by lowering the cost and bettering their technical support."
"The biggest problem was built on top of the QRadar in the executive operations center network. The integration was not using the network security specialist properly, and all the incidents were inferior with QRadar. Its compatibility is not really good."
"Each module requires a separate license and a separate cost."
"Its architecture is very complicated."
"There needs to be better integration with other applications."
"Right now, if you look at the compatibility, if you need to deploy QRadar in a physical appliance you have only two choices of server, their own or a Lenovo server. In today's world, you cannot keep something tied to such a big brand. Clients want to be able to use whatever type of server they want."
"The features that could be improved include the licensing model and the dashboards and all those presentations. Overall, the user experience part can be improved."
Grafana Loki is ranked 13th in Log Management with 12 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews. Grafana Loki is rated 8.0, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Grafana Loki writes "Effective for Logging, recovery from node failures is fast and single UI supports metrics, logs, and even tracing". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Grafana Loki is most compared with Graylog, Wazuh, syslog-ng, Splunk Enterprise Security and Fortinet FortiAnalyzer, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Grafana Loki vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors.
We monitor all Log Management 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.