Compare Aruba IntroSpect vs. Cisco Stealthwatch

Aruba IntroSpect is ranked 7th in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 2 reviews while Cisco Stealthwatch is ranked 1st in Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) with 36 reviews. Aruba IntroSpect is rated 8.6, while Cisco Stealthwatch is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Aruba IntroSpect writes "Good reporting and analysis that alerts with abnormal behavior, but the dashboard could be simplified". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco Stealthwatch writes "The network visibility feature opens up a whole new pane of glass that didn't exist before but it could be more administrator-friendly". Aruba IntroSpect is most compared with Cisco Stealthwatch, Darktrace and ArcSight Analytics, whereas Cisco Stealthwatch is most compared with Darktrace, Splunk User Behavior Analytics and Cisco Stealthwatch Cloud. See our Aruba IntroSpect vs. Cisco Stealthwatch report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Vectra AI Logo
5,889 views|4,573 comparisons
Aruba IntroSpect Logo
646 views|485 comparisons
Cisco Stealthwatch Logo
25,659 views|15,962 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Aruba IntroSpect vs. Cisco Stealthwatch and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
408,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The solution's ability to reduce alerts, by rolling up numerous alerts to create a single incident or campaign, helps in that it collapses all the events to a particular host, or a particular detection to a set of hosts. So it doesn't generate too many alerts. By and large, whatever alerts it generates are actionable, and actionable within the day.One of the most valuable features of the platform is its ability to provide you with aggregated risk scores based on impact and certainty of threats being detected. This is both applied to individual and host detections. This is important because it enables us to use this platform to prioritize the most likely imminent threats. So, it reduces alert fatigue follow ups for security operation center analysts. It also provides us with an ability to prioritize limited resources.It is doing some artificial intelligence. If it sees a server doing a lot of things, then it will assume that is normal. So, it is looking for anomalous behavior, things that are out of context which helps us reduce time. Therefore, we don't have to look in all the logs. We just wait for Vectra to say, "This one is behaving strange," then we can investigate that part.One of the key advantages for us is we define a 24/7 service around it. We use far more of Vectra alerts than we do with our SIEM product because we understand that when we get an alert from Vectra we actually need to do something about it.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is the end-user monitoring. If there is any abnormal behavior on the machine, the administrator will be alerted.I haven't heard of any issues with stability.

Read more »

The most valuable feature is anomaly detection, where it finds things that are not allowed internally.Most of the engineers I've worked with have been really good. Very knowledgeable and easy to work with.Being able to graph and show data to management has improved our organization. We can show the data to the higher-ups. It shows them that it's picking up on these anomalies and doing its job.It's a dependable product that is able to pinpoint where we have vulnerabilities if they occur.Using the Cognitive Analytics feature, we have complete visibility that we didn’t have before.The most valuable feature about this solution is that it gives me insight of my network.It has improved our internal knowledge of what's going on with the network, and that's helpful.The most valuable features of this solution are the logging, keeping threats under control, and keeping our data and environment secure.

Read more »

Cons
One thing which I have found where there could be improvement is with regard to the architecture, a little bit: how the brains and sensors function. It needs more flexibility with regard to the brain. If there were some flexibility in that regard, that would be helpful, because changing the mode of the brain is complex. In some cases, the change is permanent. You cannot revert it.You are always limited with visibility on the host due to the fact that it is a network based tool. It gives you visibility on certain elements of the attack path, but it doesn't necessarily give you visibility on everything. Specifically, the initial intrusion side of things that doesn't necessarily see the initial compromise. It doesn't see stuff that goes on the host, such as where scripts are run. Even though you are seeing traffic, it doesn't necessarily see the malicious payload. Therefore, it's very difficult for it to identify these type of host-driven complex attacks.We would like to see more information with the syslogs. The syslogs that they send to our SIEM are a bit short compared to what you can see. It would be helpful if they send us more data that we can incorporate into our SIEM, then can correlate with other events.The solution has not reduced the security analyst workload in our organization because we still need to SIEM. Unfortunately, while Vectra, for us, is a brilliant tool for network investigations, giving wonderful visibility, it doesn't go the whole way to replace our SIEM that is needed for compliance. So, I still have the same amount of alerting and logging that I did before. It gives us more defined ability to see incidents, but it doesn't give us enough information to satisfy a PCI or 27001 audit.

Read more »

I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard, where you can get the information with a simple click.The packet analyzer needs improvement.

Read more »

The usability of this solution needs to be improved.We've run into some issues with the configuration.They should include Citrix VDIs in the next release.The GUI could use some improvement. Being able to find features more easily would be a great improvement if it was simplified.The initial setup is complex, as there is a lot to configure.It hasn't really improved our direct detection rate but it has definitely reduced our incident response time as we wouldn't have been able to detect threats or immediate risks without this solution.I would like to see more and cleaner reporting. For example, if I pull up Steven and I want to look and maybe compare him to what you've done in the past week, and compare that to the past six months, the point would be to see what the difference in activity looks like over this time. I don't see that capability in reporting to date. You see that trend but you don't really see a straightforward comparison. That right there is key to what we want to see about the normal activity.It is time-consuming to set it up and understand how the tool works.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
We have a desire to increase our use. However, it all comes down to budget. It's a very expensive tool that is very difficult to prove business support for. We would like to have two separate networks. We have our corporate network and PCI network, which is segregated due to payment processing. We don't have it for deployed in the PCI network. It would be good to have it fully deployed there to provide us with additional monitoring and control, but the cost associated with their licensing model makes it prohibitively expensive to deploy.At the time of purchase, we found the pricing acceptable. We had an urgency to get something in place because we had a minor breach that occurred at the tail end of 2016 to the beginning of 2017. This indicated we had a lack of ability to detect things on the network. Hence, why we moved quickly to get into the tool in place. We found things like Bitcoin mining and botnets which we closed quickly. In that regard, it was worth the money.The license is based on the concurrent IP addresses that it's investigating. We are around $300,000 a year for three years. We have 9,800 to 10,000 IP addresses.There are additional features that can be purchased in addition to the standard licensing fee, such as Cognito Recall and Stream.We are running at about 90,000 pounds per year. The solution is a licensed cost. The hardware that they gave us was pretty much next to nothing. It is the license that we're paying for.

Read more »

The license is based on the number of users. The evaluation license is free, you can download it from the website and try it out first.

Read more »

Our fees are approximately $3,000 USD.Licensing is on a yearly basis.We pay for support costs on a yearly basis.On a yearly basis, licensing is somewhere around $30,000.The yearly licensing cost is about $50,000.The pricing for this solution is good.The licensing costs are outrageous.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) solutions are best for your needs.
408,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 39% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 33% of the time.
Compared 25% of the time.
Also Known As
Vectra NetworksIntroSpectCisco Stealthwatch Enterprise, Lancope StealthWatch
Learn
Vectra AI
Video Not Available
Aruba Networks
Cisco
Overview

Vectra® is the leader in network detection and response – from cloud and data center workloads to user and IoT devices. Its Cognito® platform accelerates threat detection and investigation using artificial intelligence to collect, store and enrich network metadata with the right context to detect, hunt and investigate known and unknown threats in real time. Vectra offers three applications on the Cognito platform to address high-priority use cases. Cognito Stream™ sends security-enriched metadata to data lakes and SIEMs. Cognito Recall™ is a cloud-based application to store and investigate threats in enriched metadata. And Cognito Detect™ uses AI to reveal and prioritize hidden and unknown attackers at speed.

Aruba, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company, is a leading provider of next-generation network access solutions for the mobile enterprise. The company designs and delivers Mobility-Defined Networks that empower IT departments and #GenMobile, a new generation of tech-savvy users who rely on their mobile devices for every aspect of work and personal communication. To create a mobility experience that #GenMobile and IT can rely upon, Aruba Mobility-Defined Networks™ automate infrastructure-wide performance optimization and trigger security actions that used to require manual IT intervention. The results are dramatically improved productivity and lower operational costs.

Cisco Stealthwatch uses NetFlow to provide visibility across the network, data center, branch offices, and cloud. Its advanced security analytics uncover stealthy attacks on the extended network. Stealthwatch helps you use your existing network as a security sensor and enforcer to dramatically improve your threat defense.

Offer
Learn more about Vectra AI
Learn more about Aruba IntroSpect
Learn more about Cisco Stealthwatch
Sample Customers
Tribune Media Group, Barry University, Aruba Networks, Good Technology, Riverbed, Santa Clara University, Securities Exchange, Tri-State Generation and Transmission AssociationSage Hotel, Centara Hotels and Resorts, Asda, The Dolder Grand,Edge Web Hosting, Telenor Norway, Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, Webster Financial Corporation, Westinghouse Electric, VMware, TIAA-CREF
Top Industries
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company23%
Comms Service Provider23%
Government8%
Retailer6%
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company24%
Financial Services Firm16%
Manufacturing Company8%
Retailer5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider27%
Software R&D Company19%
Government7%
Media Company6%
Find out what your peers are saying about Aruba IntroSpect vs. Cisco Stealthwatch and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
408,459 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Network Traffic Analysis (NTA) 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.