We performed a comparison between Elastic Security and ArcSight ESM based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Elastic Security is commended for its adaptability, extensive customization options, and seamless integration with the ELK Stack. ArcSight ESM is praised for its well-designed dashboard, real-time reporting, and threat intelligence capabilities that leverage AI and correlation tools. Users also like ArcSight’s seamless integration and effortless management. Elastic Security could improve by reducing resource usage, automating threat response, and simplifying the user experience. ArcSight ESM users have recommended improvements in training, speed, and data administration.
Service and Support: Some Elastic Security users found their support helpful, while others experienced difficulties and delays. Some ArcSight ESM users have found the support to be responsive and helpful, while others have faced issues with slow response times and a lack of expertise.
Ease of Deployment: Elastic Security generally has a straightforward setup but may require trained specialists. Some said that ArcSight ESM is straightforward to set up, while others noted that integration with other systems can be challenging and requires specialized knowledge.
Pricing: Elastic Security is considered affordable and cost-effective, with pricing based on the size of the monitored environment. Users consider the pricing of ArcSight ESM to be reasonable and affordable.
ROI: Elastic Security has shown mixed results in terms of ROI, with some users expressing concerns about the quality of their premium support. ArcSight ESM delivers an ROI by helping clients achieve compliance objectives and prevent incidents.
"Microsoft Sentinel provides the capability to integrate different log sources. On top of having several data connectors in place, you can also do integration with a threat intelligence platform to enhance and enrich the data that's available. You can collect as many logs and build all the use cases."
"The native integration of the Microsoft security solution has been essential because it helps reduce some false positives, especially with some of the impossible travel rules that may be configured in Microsoft 365. For some organizations, that might be benign because they're using VPNs, etc."
"If you know how to do KQL (kusto query language) queries, which are how you query the log data inside Sentinel, the information is pretty rich. You can get down to a good level of detail regarding event information or notifications."
"The features that stand out are the detection engine and its integration with multiple data sources."
"Sentinel is a Microsoft product, so they provide very robust use cases and analytic groups, which are very beneficial for the security team. I also like the ability to integrate data sources into the software for on-premise and cloud-based solutions."
"In Azure Sentinel, we have found, they do have a store in their capability. AI and intelligence features. We found that to be very helpful for us because some other things we do need to integrate again or find another vendor for the store"
"Sentinel also enables you to ingest data from your entire ecosystem and not just from the Microsoft ecosystem. It can receive data from third-party vendors' products such firewalls, network devices, and antivirus solutions. It's not only a Microsoft solution, it's for everything."
"Sentinel is a SIEM and SOAR tool, so its automation is the best feature; we can reduce human interaction, freeing up our human resources."
"The product is quite mature. It's been around for a long time."
"ArcSight ESM provides us the flexibility to write our own passwords and customize the solution. It lets us search and log a variety of SmartConnectors. It has 480-plus SmartConnectors."
"We have been satisfied with the support."
"We utilize ArcSight ESM for real-time threat detection in our organization. We have custom rules that we've developed on top of the WAN services, along with scheduled licensing activities."
"Some of the benefits of using this solution are rapid correlation and near-time response on alerts."
"ArcSight is customizable. You can integrate just about anything. I also like the ease of use."
"I would rate the ease of use for new users an eight out of ten, with ten being easy to use. It is a good tool."
"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."
"The scalability is good. It can be scaled easily in the production environment."
"The solution has a good community surrounding it for lots of helpful documentation for troubleshooting purposes."
"We chose the product based on the ability to scan for malware using a malware behavioral model as opposed to just a traditional hash-based antivirus. Therefore, it's not as intensive."
"It can handle millions of loads at a time, and you can always use the filters to find exactly what you are looking for and detect errors in every log message you are searching for, basically."
"It's very stable and reliable."
"The most valuable features of Elastic Security are it is open-source and provides a high level of security."
"We've found the initial setup to be quite straightforward."
"I use the stack every morning to check the errors and it's just so clear. I don't see any disadvantage to using Logstash."
"Sentinel provides decent visibility, but it's sometimes a little cumbersome to get to the information I want because there is so much information. I would also like to see more seamless integration between Sentinel and third-party security products."
"Azure Sentinel will be directly competing with tools such as Splunk or Qradar. These are very established kinds of a product that have been around for the last seven, eight years or more."
"We're satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the security protection. That said, we do have issues sometimes where there have been global outages and we need to raise a ticket with Microsoft."
"We do have in-built or out-of-the-box metrics that are shown on the dashboard, but it doesn't give the kind of metrics that we need from our environment whereby we need to check the meantime to detect and meantime to resolve an incident. I have to do it manually. I have to pull all the logs or all the alerts that are fed into Sentinel over a certain period. We do this on a monthly basis, so I go into Microsoft Sentinel and pull all the alerts or incidents we closed over a period of thirty days."
"It could have a better API to be able to automate many things more extensively and get more extensive data and more expensive deployment possibilities. It can gain some points on the automation part and the integration part. The API is very limited, and I would like to see it extended a bit more."
"It has been a challenge with Azure Sentinel to onboard the Syslog server from FortiGate. Azure Sentinel can work better on that shift between the Syslog server and a firewall."
"The performance could be improved. If I create 15 to 20 lines for a single-use case in KQL, sometimes it takes more time to execute. If I create use cases within a certain timeline, the result will show in .01 seconds. A complex query takes more time to get results."
"There are certain delays. For example, if an alert has been rated on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, it might take up to an hour for that alert to reach Sentinel. This should ideally take no more than one or two seconds."
"In certain cases, this product does have false positives, which the company should work on."
"The stability isn't quite perfect. We occasionally run into problems."
"ArcSight ESM could improve by adding more features and documentation. There needs to be more documentation."
"I am having issues with report generation with older versions. I don't know if this is because of compatibility issues, but report generation has been a little bit difficult in older versions. It is not similar to the newer and current versions. We are looking at moving to the cloud. It would be good if ArcSight ESM can move to the cloud. They already seem to be working on this. It would also be very helpful and great if we can integrate external threat intelligence, machine learning, and AI into this solution. It has good dashboards, but they can always be better. Its stability can also be improved."
"There are several improvements that we would like to see, including: Building a system based on a log collection (SOC), a scenario for external encroachment, and Operator training."
"The user interface of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager could improve. It is not very good. Additionally, they could integrate the web interface better."
"ArcSight ESM needs to improve performance, user interface, and automation."
"When I asked our networking juniors for a comparison between LogRhythm and ArcSight, they said that both platforms are almost the same. It is just that LogRhythm is more modern with a digital platform, which probably gives it some advantage over ArcSight. ArcSight is a very old and mature product that is running on an old platform. It is an old legacy platform. In terms of new features, it just requires platform upgrades so that it becomes lighter and easily adaptable, specifically in the cloud. It would be a good thing if they can also make reporting easier."
"With Elastic, you have to build the use cases for the specific requirement. Other products have a simple integration and more use cases to integrate out-of-the-box solutions for SIEM."
"There is room for improvement in the Kibana dashboard and in the asset management for the program."
"There isn't really a very good user experience. You need a lot of training."
"Elastic Security could improve the documentation. It would help if they were more simple and clean."
"I would like the process of retrieving archived data and viewing it in Kibana to be simplified."
"Elastic has one problem. In the past, Elastic Security was free. Now, they currently only offer the basic license or a certain period of time."
"This solution is very hard to implement."
"I would like more ways to manage permissions and restrict access to certain users."
More ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is ranked 12th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 93 reviews while Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 58 reviews. ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is rated 7.8, while Elastic Security is rated 7.6. 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 Elastic Security writes "A stable and scalable tool that provides visibility along with the consolidation of logs to its users". ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, ArcSight Intelligence, Trellix ESM, IBM Security QRadar and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, IBM Security QRadar and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) vs. Elastic Security 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.
