We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Wazuh based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: IBM Security QRadar users say the solution provides extensive information and helpful leads for locating pertinent data. Wazuh stands out for its effortless integration, excellent log monitoring capabilities, and ELK-based investigation. IBM Security QRadar could improve its rule deployment and lower its false positive rate. Users would also like expanded storage capacity, streamlined user management, and a more mature architecture. Wazuh needs improvements in event source coverage, threat intelligence integration, and real-time monitoring of Unix systems.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Wazuh's customer service is generally deemed satisfactory, and many customers noted that they could easily find answers from community forums.
Ease of Deployment: IBM Security QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Some users said that Wazuh’s setup is easy and fast, while others perceived it as complicated and said it required a significant amount of time.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Wazuh is a cost-effective option as it is open-source and completely free to acquire.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Wazuh's MSP program and partnerships offer opportunities to generate revenue from the platform.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer IBM Security QRadar over Wazuh. The advanced security features and overall strength of QRadar make it the favored option. Users like QRadar's extensive and actionable insights, user-friendly interface, and adaptability. QRadar offers a comprehensive overview of network activity and risk management.
"The ability to hunt that IM data set or the identity data set at the same time is valuable. As incident response professionals, we are very used to EDRs and having device process registry telemetry, but a lot of times, we do not have that identity data right there with us, so we have to go search for it in some other silo. Being able to cross-correlate via both datasets at the same time is something that we can only do in Def"
"The 'Incidents and Alerts' tab is a valuable feature where we can find triggered alerts."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft 365 Defender are the combination of all the capabilities and centralized management."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a stable solution."
"The threat intelligence is excellent."
"Microsoft Defender XDR provides strong identity protection with comprehensive insights into risky user behavior and potential indicators of compromise."
"For me, the advanced hunting capabilities have been really great. It allowed querying the dataset with their own language, which is KQL or Kusto Query Language. That has allowed me to get much more insight into the events that have occurred. The whole power of 365 Defender is that you can get the whole story. It allows you to query an email-based activity and then correlate it with an endpoint-based activity."
"The threat hunting capabilities in general are great."
"I like that it's easy to use and the performance is good."
"I have found the most important features to be the flexibility, tech framework, and disk manager."
"Vulnerability detection is the most valuable feature. It's the tool that finds the threats."
"The most valuable feature is the machine learning module."
"The scalability is very good. It's not a problem."
"It allows us to search data both on-premises and on the cloud."
"The most valuable feature is user behavior analytics (UBA)."
"The tool is stable."
"The product is easy to customize."
"The main thing I like about it is that it has an EDR."
"I like the cloud-native infrastructure and that it's free. We didn't have to pay anything, and it has the capabilities of many premium solutions in the market. We could integrate all of our services and infrastructure in the cloud with Wazuh. From an integration point of view, Wazuh is pretty good. I had a good experience with this platform."
"Wazuh's best features are syscheck, its ability to immediately resolve vulnerabilities, and that it's open source."
"The product’s interface is intuitive."
"My company implemented Wazuh because it was relatively inexpensive. They could quickly get their hands on it to check a box for some audit and compliance."
"It has efficient SCA capabilities."
"When we do investigations, it would be better if Microsoft could populate the host dashboard more. When we open any host for investigation, we want the entire timeline of what is happening on the host, including all the users logging in, their hardware, Windows version, etc."
"From an integration standpoint, it is always improving overall. With Security Copilot coming out, as partners, we are waiting for the GDAP support so that we can actually see Security Copilot on behalf of customers if they subscribe to it."
"The user interface of Microsoft 365 Defender could improve. They could make it simpler."
"Microsoft 365 Defender does not have a unique package with emerging endpoint security technologies, such as EDR and XDR."
"Defender also lacks automated detection and response. You need to resolve issues manually. You can manage multiple Microsoft security products from a single portal, and all your security recommendations are in one place. It's easy to understand and manage. However, I wouldn't say Defender is a single pane of glass. You still need to switch between all of the available Microsoft tools. You can see all the alerts in one panel, but you can't automate remediation."
"The abundance of sub-dashboards and sub-areas within the main dashboard can be confusing, even if it all technically makes sense."
"There are still some components, such as vulnerability management within the vendor product, where improved integration would be beneficial."
"The onboarding and offboarding need improvement. I work with other vendors as well, and they have an option to add a device or remove a device from the portal, whereas with Microsoft 365 Defender, we need to do that manually. However, once you do that, everything can be controlled through the portal, but getting the device onboarded and offboarded is currently manual. If we have an option to simply remove a device from the portal or get a device added from the portal, it would be more convenient. The rest of the features are similar. This is the only area where I found it different from others. I would also like to be able to simply filter with a few of the queries that are already there."
"Each module requires a separate license and a separate cost."
"This solution is on-premise and many customers are moving to the cloud base solution."
"There should be an extension where we can get the reports. This could be an extension to the dashboard with the Guardian or another product with limited technology, for example IPS. Now, we only have IBM. Basically, it needs more and more integration models."
"The modularity could be improved."
"From a functionality point of view there are issues sometimes."
"IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics could improve machine learning use cases because they are limited and most of the use cases are rule-based. They should develop more use cases, such as in Securonix or Exabeam because they will detect a threat. Using machine learning is mainly on the correlation rules, but if you think about Exabeam or Securonix, they detect using machine learning or machine learning-based algorithms."
"It would be good if the program allowed certain profiles to only see certain customer information."
"Needs better visualization options beyond the time series charts and a few other options that they have."
"Alerts should be specific rather than repeatedly triggered by integrating multiple factors. This issue needs improvement to create a more efficient alert system."
"The tool does not provide CTI to monitor darknet."
"The deployment is a bit complex."
"Scalability is a challenge because it is distributed architecture and it uses Elastic DB. Their Elastic DB doesn't allow open source waste application."
"Since it's an open-source tool, scalability is the main issue."
"The technical support can be improved. Wazuh has some bugs that need to be fixed. It would be good if we can have automation with respect to incidence responses."
"They need to go towards integrating with more cloud applications and not just OS like Windows and Linux."
"The implementation is very complex."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Wazuh is ranked 2nd in Log Management with 38 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Wazuh is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Wazuh writes "It integrates seamlessly with AWS cloud-native services". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, LogRhythm SIEM, Elastic Security and Sentinel, whereas Wazuh is most compared with Elastic Security, Security Onion, Splunk Enterprise Security, AlienVault OSSIM and USM Anywhere. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Wazuh report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors, best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.
