IBM Security QRadar Reviews

The simplicity of the solution is the best feature.

The dashboards are all legacy and old. Their cloud support and the content available for cloud and containers are also minimal.

We have been using this solution since 2019.

I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability an eight out of ten, and we have about 35 people using it.

I rate the technical support a five out of ten. They need to improve their availability. They have global support, which means we need to wait longer for a response.

Neutral

I rate the initial setup a seven out of ten, and it is deployed on-premises. The deployment took about four to six weeks, and we did it in-house.

We have seen an ROI.

I rate the price a six out of ten, with ten being affordable and one being expensive. They recently changed their licensing model, and it's more complex.

I rate this solution a six out of ten. Regarding advice, using this solution purely depends on the use case. If it meets your use case, then IBM QRadar is good, but other solutions like Securonix are much better.

Our primary use case for the solution is providing visibility for what occurs in our security system and IT assets. So all our event logs and information from a setting and criticality level go there. Additionally, there's AI used to trigger alerts when things are going bad, and then we can action them.

We find predictive analysis capabilities valuable.

The solution should include remote action capabilities.

We have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Over 1,000 people in our organization use the solution.

The initial setup is moderate, and it is neither easy nor difficult. However, it took approximately one week to complete the implementation.

We implemented it through a vendor team.

We chose this solution because it was provided to us through software as a service.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good but can be improved with enhanced remote control ability. I recommend the solution to new users considering it.

To be very frank, it's not that much help as of now. We are not getting that many insights from UVA, which we wanted, actually. As of now, we are exploring that UVA, and we have installed it. It's still quite new.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

The solution is still new to us. Currently, it's a work in progress with this. I'm not in any particular condition to tell what exact improvements are required. I will let a few more months go by before analyzing the overall UBS solution QRadar to get to know and final understanding of this particular application.

There are a lot of things that require modification. That's my initial observation, however, I need more time and a few more months to get to know it and get a final understanding of the solution as a whole.

I want a reduction of false positives. I want crisp true positive incidents out of it. I want to see proper user behavior. Whatever algorithm is working in the background, that algorithm should produce accurate, true positive incidents and not false positives.

We are using QRadar as an appliance for the last four years, however, we recently, for the last six months, started using UBS.

I'm not sure about the stability just yet. We've observed a few issues and we raised a supporting ticket for it.

The scalability is very good. It's not a problem.

Technical support has been very supportive. We're largely satisfied with them.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. It's not very complex. 

We are using multiple features in QRadar. UVA is just one feature. We have overall 14 data nodes and we are almost 2,500 GB of data integrated with it and we are using multiple applications in QRadar. We have a nine-member team that manages the overall QRadar architecture, not only UBA.

We did a direct integration.

I'm an architect. Normally costs and licensing are handled by senior management.

For UBA, they haven't asked for any extra charges or anything. It's included in the licensing.

We're an IBM partner. We have platinum support with IBM.

We have segregated our data between on-prem and the cloud. All the on-prem data we have integrated with the QRadar. QRadar itself is an on-prem solution. We have QRadar hardware with us.

At this point, I would not recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

I was initially a reseller before selling the solution from within IBM. I'm currently a freelance security sales consultant. 

A valuable feature is the detection capability. I like that the solution can use data other than log data which means that things like vulnerability data, network data and the like, are part of the correlation and detection.

I think they could change their pricing model to be more cost effective. It currently relies on data ingestion. I'd like to see IBM extend their capability with the solution to include more than just fault finding, features such as predictive identification of threads. Having better support for things like MITRE and the ATT&CK chain, and using all of the known attacks that are out there when they're actually spotting events and correlations. 

I've used this solution for 10 years. 

The solution is very scalable. 

Technical support is pretty good, but sometimes when the problems are complex they can be slow to respond. 

The initial setup is very easy. I think it's one of the easiest SIMs to use. 

IBM has recently come out with a new version called Cloud Pak for Security but I haven't used it yet. It contains not just QRadar, but also IBM's resilience incident response products. 

I recommend the solution but because of the issues with pricing and technical support, I rate the solution seven out of 10. 

The price is very good. It's quite reasonable.

The solution's performance is excellent. The stability is excellent.

We've found the technical support to be very good.

The pricing is very good.

The product needs to improve its GUI. The dashboard which they facilitate needs to be modernized. They could make it a lot better and a lot easier to navigate.

I've been using the solution for approximately two years or so.

The stability of the product has been great. It's from 80% to 90% is stable. There are very few bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. If you do run into issues, technical support is quite helpful. 

The product works well for small or medium-sized enterprises.

The technical support has been great so far. If you run into any kind of issue, their support is available. They are very helpful and extremely responsive. We're quite satisfied with their level of service. I'd give them a rating of 90% to 95%.

The pricing of the solution is quite reasonable.

We're a customer and an end-user. We don't have a direct business relationship with IBM.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been extremely satisfied with the product so far.

I'd recommend the solution, however, depends upon a company's budget and requirements. For small and medium enterprises, QRadar is the best solution, due to its price and performance.

The features that I have found most valuable in QRadar are its data enrichment, use case creations, and adding references - those kinds of features are very good. Also, QRadar's event filtration and device integration are perfect. 

Actually, we are looking for another product because a customer is demanding different products and they're not going with QRadar, hence we are trying to compare QRadar with other solutions like Securonix, Splunk, Exabeam, LogRhythm. Otherwise, all our customers are happy with QRadar.

I'm doing integrations and deployments for QRadar. So, in regards to integration and deployment, QRadar is very easy as compared to other products.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the script which we have to create for custom actions. QRadar needs to improve that feature.  Additionally, QRadar has to provide the playbooks designing features.

I have been working with IBM QRadar for the last four years.

QRadar is very stable in our deployment. I'm not aware of other customer deployments.

IBM QRadar is scalable. We can scale it according to our requirements. We can scale it up, as per our requirement. We can increase the resources, we can increase the storage. We can do everything with QRadar.

Their technical support is also good. During weekends they are only looking at the priority issues. That is difficult, because sometimes the critical log sources stop sending events to QRadar and in those cases we need support on an urgent basis, but they're not going to support it during weekend.

We work with LogRhythm as well as QRadar, as well as NetIQ Sentinel, Azure Sentinel and others.

The initial setup for QRadar is easy. It is easy to understand and easy to implement.

As compared to LogRhythm, IBM QRadar's pricing is moderate.

We recommend QRadar. It is a good product, a good solution.

Every customer should go with IBM QRadar.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give IBM QRadar a nine.

We make some special demos that we sell to our customers. We work as a technical support L1/L2 for our customers in these cases as well.

The solution allows organizations to check people who work from home or in the office. It can help a company understand who is connected from home. 

Sometimes people give a login and password to colleagues. The security can see the situation when someone logs in locally, and they can see a remote connection. They can see this is from the login and password. They'd be able to tell if something was shared and could dig deep to figure out if it is a breach or if it is something that has been properly shared. 

The SOAR features are very good.

The product is able to handle special requests.

It can effectively search local files.

We are able to deploy in two or more different locations.

The solution is functional right out of the box and it's a pretty simple system with different kinds of solutions that address different types of problems. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.  

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

Technical support is good overall.

Qradar has a lot of integration capabilities with different security products.

If we talk about functionality in general for SIEM systems, it's good.

In terms of the government sector, sometimes they do not have enough money to buy a full SIEM. That's why they ask about some parts of the SIEM system or core. It can be expensive.

It would be ideal if they offered a barebone setup alongside an appliance. It's very interesting for different kinds of customers. Most of them prefer the core appliance, yet some of them prefer barebone.

It would be ideal if the solution offered new connectors to other systems.

The reporting system could use some upgrading.

We've been using the solution for at least the last 12 months or so.

The stability is good. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The scalability of the product is very good. Sometimes we get requests for specific functionality and usually, we can accommodate that.

Generally, we are happy with technical support. They are helpful and responsive.

The initial setup is very simple for our customers due to the fact that the first step is a demo for a customer. We need about 5 to 15 working days to make this demo. We talk about making a core system. It's not difficult to make over the Qradar SIEM. After that, if the customer needs some special function for, for example, different parts of the organization, we can propose some separate parts of SIEM. That's about two or eight weeks away. 

In general, for a SIEM project, you are looking at a deployment time of about two til eight months. 

As integrators, we can help advise clients and assist in the deployment process.

IBM Qradar has an interesting scheme for payments. They have annual payments for customers who use subscriptions for some services. I can't see any problem with the current financial scheme for this product generally. It's okay.

We are implementors. Our customers are the ones that use IBM Qradar.

We are an IBM partner.

We strongly recommend to our customers use the latest version of Qradar. It's important for security. We tend to use the latest in general.

Our customer is a government organization, including some ministries. Therefore, they use on-premise deployments only. However, they have some plans for hybrid clouds or private clouds in the next three or four years. That said, it's very hard to say exactly as the work at the ministry is about security. On-premise is deemed to be more secure.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.