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.
"We also use Microsoft Sentinel, Defender for Cloud, Defender for Identity, and Microsoft Defender for Cloud Apps. They are all integrated and it was very easy to integrate them. In my experience with the integrations, it was just a click of a button and things were integrated. It's just a button."
"We are connected to Microsoft and have every laptop enrolled. This acts as an endpoint. The tool helps me check security and compliance. I can also check what a device is doing."
"The common and advanced security policies for threat hunting and blocking attacks are valuable."
"The threat intelligence is excellent."
"Among the most valuable features are the alert timeline, the alert story, which is pretty detailed. It gives us complete insight into what exactly happened on the endpoint. It doesn't just say, "Malware detected." It tells us what caused that malware to be detected and how it was detected. It gives us a complete timeline from beginning to end."
"The EDR and the way it automatically responds to ransomware and other attacks are valuable features."
"Another noteworthy feature that I find appealing in Microsoft Defender is the credit-backed simulation. This feature enables organizations to train their users on effectively responding to phishing emails through a simulated training environment."
"There is also one dashboard that shows us the status of many controls at once and the details I can get... It gives a great overview of many areas, such as files, emails, chats, and links. Even with the apps, it gives you a great overview. In one place you can see where you should look into things more deeply..."
"Due to the skills shortage, we are able to use it from the standpoint of bringing in a lower level employee or a person who may not have security knowledge."
"In addition to using this solution for our security operations center, we are using it for our other customers."
"It also has a graph that shows the traffic history. I can see what happened yesterday or today. If there's an incident, I can check the traffic behavior on QRadar."
"The scalability is good."
"The threat hunting capabilities in general are great."
"It's built around Red Hat Linux, which is highly robust."
"Overall a great solution."
"The most valuable features are log monitoring, easy-to-fix issues, and problem-solving."
"The main thing I like about it is that it has an EDR."
"Wazuh offers an enhanced HDR version that outperforms its competitors."
"Wazuh has very flexible and robust features."
"The tool is stable."
"It is excellent in terms of visualization and indexing services, making it a powerful tool for malware detection."
"Wazuh is free and easy to use. It is also adjustable, and we can use it on the cloud and on-premises."
"Some of the strengths of Wazuh that stand out for us include its scalability when deployed on Azure, its open-source nature, which allows for customization based on our needs, and its compatibility with various security solutions like threat intelligence platforms."
"Its cost-effectiveness is the most valuable aspect."
"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."
"Sometimes, configurations take much longer than expected."
"I would like more of the features in Defender for 365 to be included in the smaller licenses. Even if I buy a small license and don't need everything, security shouldn't be a question. Security is one of the main aspects of all projects from our side, so it would be nice to have more features in the smaller licenses."
"Advanced attacks could use an improvement."
"The mobile app support for Android and iOS is difficult and needs improvement."
"The console is missing some features that would be helpful for a managed services provider, like device and user management."
"Support is hit or miss. Microsoft wants you to buy premium support contracts. Though they call themselves professional support, it's almost like throwing questions into a black hole. You get an answer, but it's never helpful."
"Offboarding latency should be reduced. Even after a device has been successfully offboarded using a particular offboarding script, it still shows up as onboarded."
"There is room for improvement in IBM QRadar in integrating features for SOC maturity and security levels directly into QRadar."
"The only challenge is that IBM has been a closed enterprise. It should be more open to integrating with other providers at an enterprise level. We're a bank and the core banking system integration is not way straightforward and there is no integration between IBM and these products. If IBM could open up and provide a way of integrating it seamlessly, without charging more for it, that would make a big difference."
"We need more features in order to create rules to detect or to meet some requirements for other areas, for example, catching the event from other authentication tools."
"I would like to see a more user-friendly product."
"The whole process for support is something that needs to be improved."
"Whenever we are upgrading or installing any type of patch, at that time we have some delays."
"I would like to see the update process simplified."
"They should introduce some automation into the product."
"It would be great if there could be customization for the decoder portion."
"Its configuration process is time-consuming."
"They could include flexibility and customization capabilities by modifying for customers based on partner agreements."
"The support team could be more responsive and provide quicker replies during our working hours in Indonesia, which would be a significant improvement."
"Scalability is a challenge because it is distributed architecture and it uses Elastic DB. Their Elastic DB doesn't allow open source waste application."
"There's not much I like about Wazuh. Other products I've used were a lot more functional and user friendly. They came with reports and use cases out of the box. We need to configure Wazuh's alerts and monitoring capabilities manually. It'd be nice if we could select from templates and presets for use cases already built and coded."
"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."
"Its user interface for sure can be improved. It is not so comfortable to use if you're looking for specific logs."
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.
