We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Cynet 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. QRadar stands out with its comprehensive network visibility and strong SIEM capabilities. Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. 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. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents.
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. Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Customers generally think Cynet is affordable and a good value for its features.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer IBM Security QRadar over Cynet. 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.
"I like Defender XDR's automation capabilities. XDR isn't automated by default, but you can automate it to respond. If an attack is performed anywhere within the organization, you can isolate that instance from the network. This is what I can figure out for it. When integrated with Sentinel, you can set up playbooks to automate all the alerts gathered on Sentinel from different Microsoft solutions. Sentinel has a wider range of capabilities than XDR."
"Microsoft Defender XDR is scalable."
"Microsoft 365 Defender is a good solution and easy to use."
"The product integrates security into one tool instead of having third-party security tools."
"The solution is well integrated with applications. It is easy to maintain and administer."
"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."
"From the perspective of Microsoft 365 XDR, the main benefit is a single, centralized dashboard offering the holistic visibility organizations crave."
"The incident threat response and its ability to facilitate effective remediation against threats are the standout features."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that it is a complete solution, which makes cyber security very free and almost perfect. There is no such thing as perfect cyber security, but as far as it can go, sign it comes close to being perfect and holistic. Cynet is always comprehensive from the perspective of functionality, as well as from the standpoint that it encompasses not only technology but also processes and people. The triad of people, processes, and technology is crucial and should always be in place. To my knowledge, no other product or platform combines all three components into one, but Cynet does."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"A good feature is how the solution packages varied information into a single dashboard that's readable and meets our needs."
"This solution requires less management and is very easy to use."
"I like that you can implement it in the managed service portfolio."
"The feature that I have found most valuable is that the configuration and the usage of the product are not so complicated. For people responsible for using this infrastructure for the first line of workstation monitoring, it's quite easy to use."
"Advanced detection and protection against ransomware paired with SOC monitoring are the most valuable features. They have 24/7 SOC monitoring and file activity. It is a very robust tool."
"The best part of this solution is having a third-party SOC."
"It has a lot of good correlation rules. From a customer's point of view, it is one of the best solutions because you don't need to create correlation rules from scratch. You just review them and customize them as you want."
"The most valuable features would have to be the products' ability to customize vulnerability management settings."
"IBM QRadar is easy to scale, it doesn't affect the environment. In our office, we have around 40 - 50 users, but our clients have more users on their networks. Our organization has staff in the software department that manages IBM QRadar for us."
"The UBA feature is the most valuable because you can see everything about users' activities."
"The most valuable feature is user behavior analytics (UBA)."
"It comes with many rules disabled. You can tune them and modify them according to your enterprise needs and avoid false positives."
"Vulnerability detection is the most valuable feature. It's the tool that finds the threats."
"365 Defender has multiple subsets, including Defender for Cloud Apps. When integrating Defender for Cloud Apps with apps on third-party cloud platforms like AWS or GCP, there are limitations on our ability to control user activities. If Microsoft added more control over third-party products, that would be a game-changer and help us quite a lot."
"I'd like to see a wider solution that includes not only desktop devices but also other devices, such as servers, storage cabinets, switching equipment, et cetera."
"The licensing is a nightmare and has room for improvement."
"Sometimes, configurations take much longer than expected."
"The interface could be improved. For example, if you want to do a phishing simulation for your employees, it can take a while to figure out what to do. The interface is a bit messy and could be updated. It isn't too bad, but doing some things can be a long process."
"In the future, it would be beneficial for Microsoft to consider making the product more user-friendly or simplified for those who are interested in using it. Currently, it requires a high level of technical expertise, making it challenging for beginners or less experienced individuals."
"Customers say they want absolutely seamless integration between other Microsoft solutions and Defender XDR, including the ability to change device settings within the Defender portal. They need to contact the IT team responsible for the device management tools to change some settings. They would prefer that those changes be initiated directly from the Defender portal or applied from Intune without involving the IT operations team."
"Intrusion detection and prevention would be great to have with 365 Defender."
"The inability to add contact information inside the Cynet is also an issue because it makes things more complicated. I would like to have a simple feature to enter a contact name and number for the person taking care of that unit or that server."
"Cynet could improve when a reverse proxy is being used to connect to the servers. There could be an easier configuration because it is not plug-and-play."
"Management of the console could be simplified and made more user-friendly because right now it's not very easy to use."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"One thing to note is that I highly recommend adding a deep learning-based prevention environment as an additional layer to Cynet. However, I always advise my customers to start with Cynet or XDR, for example, and then focus on the people, technology, and processes involved. This is the best approach to ensure that you are not breached with ransomware. While Cynet can prevent most attacks, there have been cases where ransomware has been quicker than Cynet's detection capabilities. In these situations, an additional tool is necessary to ensure complete protection, and that is what I sell as well."
"Linux servers are not supported."
"There could be more customization options and detailed information provided in the reports."
"I cannot provide more details about Cynet's automation features. While Cynet claims to be automated, the specifics of this automation are unclear. They claim to have a high capability to detect and block attacks, but I am cautious about companies that claim to solve every problem without limitations. It does help in identifying malware on the network but doesn't specifically identify vulnerabilities."
"The API integration for AD is a problem when it comes to vulnerability management. If you want to incorporate multiple factor authentication it becomes a problem with the AD. It doesn't integrate well. That needs to be improved."
"Right now, if you look at the compatibility, if you need to deploy QRadar in a physical appliance you have only two choices of server, their own or a Lenovo server. In today's world, you cannot keep something tied to such a big brand. Clients want to be able to use whatever type of server they want."
"There is one problem with QRadar in regards to the add-on apps. The apps can be frustrating. For example, when I add a big app like one of the add-ons for resiliency, add-on applications for QRadar, these applications require different hardware to implement and to deploy. The resiliency connector because there's a considerable amount of data scanning, operates for these apps correctly."
"A lot of information that we receive for the devices is IP-based, but it would help if we could have a default dashboard in which we can add more details about the assets for which we are receiving the information. For example, if it is a Windows or Linux device, we only get the IP for that particular device. We don't really get the name and other details of that particular device. For that, you have to drill down into your own asset management system. It would be good to have a place where we can probably add this information so that we don't have to look into other tools."
"I'd like them to improve the offense. When QRadar detects something, it creates what it calls offenses. So, it has a rudimentary ticketing system inside of it. This is the same interface that was there when I started using it 12 years ago. It just has not been improved. They do allow integration with IBM Resilient, but IBM Resilient is grotesquely expensive. The most effective integration that IBM offers today is with IBM Resilient, which is an instant response platform. It is a very good platform, but it is very expensive. They really should do something with the offense handling because it is very difficult to scale, and it has limitations. The maximum number of offenses that it can carry is 16K. After 16K, you have to flush your offenses out. So, it is all or nothing. You lose all your offenses up until that point in time, and you don't have any history within the offense list of older events. If you're dealing with multiple customers, this becomes problematic. That's why you need to use another product to do the actual ticketing. If you wanted the ticket existence, you would normally interface with ServiceNow, SolarWinds, or some other product like that."
"I think QRadar is very complex. It's a distributed system and IBM QRadar has an all-in-one solution which is not like that distributed solution but it's a good product. IBM needs to consider the user interface because if we compare it with AlienVault, the AlienVault user interface is fantastic but the IBM QRadar user interface is very complex. They should focus on how to make it easier for the client."
"The biggest problem was built on top of the QRadar in the executive operations center network. The integration was not using the network security specialist properly, and all the incidents were inferior with QRadar. Its compatibility is not really good."
"The user interface and configurability of IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics can be improved. It has a lot of pre-configured settings and not many things can be changed. It also needs more integrations. Currently, User Behavior Analytics is integrated only with IBM QRadar. It could have deeper integrations. It can also have more complicated scoring models. Currently, it has a very simple linear scoring model for users."
Cynet is ranked 4th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 35 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 1st in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 198 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Cynet vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) vendors, best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) vendors.
We monitor all User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) 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.