We performed a comparison between Devo and Elastic Security based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Devo users praised the solution’s ability to ingest and store data in its original format and multi-tenancy feature. They also liked Devo’s community-driven content and code-based approach. Elastic Security is commended for its adaptability, extensive customization options, and seamless integration with the ELK Stack. Devo could benefit from improved workflow integration and search features. Users say Devo’s agents could handle Windows event logs better, and the solution should overhaul its basic reporting mechanisms. Elastic Security could improve by reducing resource usage, automating threat response, and simplifying the user experience.
Service and Support: Devo customers value their collaborative approach, responsiveness, and strong partnerships. Customers appreciate the ease of working with Devo and trust their support team. Some Elastic Security users found their support helpful, while others experienced difficulties and delays.
Ease of Deployment: Devo's initial setup was deemed manageable, with users praising the ease of data onboarding as well as the availability of professional services and training. Elastic Security generally has a straightforward setup but may require trained specialists.
Pricing: Devo's pricing is considered fair and competitive with no hidden costs. However, reviewers recommend that Devo's pricing tiers should offer more flexibility. Elastic Security is considered affordable and cost-effective, with pricing based on the size of the monitored environment.
ROI: Devo offers a substantial return on investment thanks to the solution’s superior data ingestion, scalability, and cost savings. Elastic Security has shown mixed results in terms of ROI, with some users expressing concerns about the quality of their premium support.
"The solution has features that helped improve the security posture of our clients. It provides the ability to correlate a large variety of log sources very cost-effectively, especially for Microsoft sources."
"It has a lot of great features."
"The log query feature has been the most valuable because it's very good. You can put your data on the cloud and run queues from Sentinel. It will do it all very fast. I love that I don't have to upload it to an Excel file and then manually look for a piece of information. Sentinel is much faster and is good for big databases."
"Sentinel has features that have helped improve our security poster. It helped us in going ahead and identifying the gaps via analysis and focusing on the key elements."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"It is quite efficient. It helps our clients in identifying their security issues and respond quickly. Our clients want to automate incident response and all those things."
"The Identity Behavior tab furnishes us with the entire history linked to each IP or domain that has either accessed or attempted to access our system."
"Having your logs put all in one place with machine learning working on those logs is a good feature. I don't need to start thinking, "Where are my logs?" My logs are in a centralized repository, like Log Analytics, which is why you can't use Sentinel without Log Analytics. Having all those logs in one place is an advantage."
"One of the biggest features of the UI is that you see the actual code of what you're doing in the graphical user interface, in a little window on the side. Whatever you're doing, you see the code, what's happening. And you can really quickly switch between using the GUI and using the code. That's really useful."
"The most useful feature for us, because of some of the issues we had previously, was the simplicity of log integrations. It's much easier with this platform to integrate log sources that might not have standard logging and things like that."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the ability that Devo has to ingest data. From the previous SIEM that I came from and helped my company administer, it really was the type of system where data was parsed on ingest. This meant that if you didn't build the parser efficiently or correctly, sometimes that would bring the system to its knees. You'd have a backlog of processing the logs as it was ingesting them."
"It's very, very versatile."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"Devo has a really good website for creating custom configurations."
"The strength of Devo is not only in that it is pretty intuitive, but it gives you the flexibility and creativity to merge feeds. The prime examples would be using the synthesis or union tables that give you phenomenal capabilities... The ability to use a synthesis or union table to combine all those feeds and make heads or tails of what's going on, and link it to go down a thread, is functionality that I hadn't seen before."
"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."
"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."
"It is an extremely stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Its flexibility is most valuable. We can have a number of scenarios, and we can get logs from anything. If we know how to use Logstash, we can tweak it in many ways. This makes the logging search on Elastic very easy."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the prevention methods and the incident alerts."
"ELK Logstash is easy and fast, at least for the initial setup with the out of box uses."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to collect authentication information from service providers."
"The most valuable feature is the machine learning capability."
"Not all information shows up in Sentinel. Sometimes there are items provided in 365 and if you looked in Sentinel you would not see them and therefore think they do not exist. There can be discrepancies between Microsoft tools."
"Currently, the watchlist feature is being utilized, and although there have been improvements, it is still not fully optimized."
"They only classify alerts into three categories: high, medium, and low. So, from the user's point of view, having another critical category would be awesome."
"I would like Sentinel to have more out-of-the-box analytics rules. There are already more than 400 rules, but they could add more industry-specific ones. For example, you could have sets of out-of-the-box rules for banking, financial sector, insurance, automotive, etc., so it's easier for people to use it out of the box. Structuring the rules according to industry might help us."
"The troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"They can work on the EDR side of things... Every time we need to onboard these kinds of machines into the EDR, we need to do it with the help of Intune, to sync up the devices, and do the configuration. I'm looking for something on the EDR side that will reduce this kind of work."
"Only one thing is missing: NDR is not available out-of-the-box. The competitive cloud-native SIEM providers have the NDR component. Currently, Sentinel needs NDR to be powered from either Corelight or some other NDR provider."
"The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning."
"There's room for improvement within the GUI. There is also some room for improvement within the native parsers they support. But I can say that about pretty much any solution in this space."
"Technical support could be better."
"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."
"There's always room to reduce the learning curve over how to deal with events and machine data. They could make the machine data simpler."
"An admin who is trying to audit user activity usually cannot go beyond a day in the UI. I would like to have access to pages and pages of that data, going back as far as the storage we have, so I could look at every command or search or deletion or anything that a user has run. As an admin, that would really help. Going back just a day in the UI is not going to help, and that means I have to find a different way to do that."
"One major area for improvement for Devo... is to provide more capabilities around pre-built monitoring. They're working on integrations with different types of systems, but that integration needs to go beyond just onboarding to the platform. It needs to include applications, out-of-the-box, that immediately help people to start monitoring their systems. Such applications would include dashboards and alerts, and then people could customize them for their own needs so that they aren't starting from a blank slate."
"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."
"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."
"We set up a cron job to delete old logs so that we wouldn't hit a disk space issue. Such a feature should be available in the UI, where old logs can be deleted automatically. (Don’t know if this feature is already there)."
"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."
"The tool needs to integrate with legacy servers. Big companies can have legacy servers that may not always be updated."
"An area for improvement in Elastic Security is the pricing. It could be better. Right now, when you increase the volume of logs to be collected, the price also increases a lot."
"One limitation of Elastic Security is that it does not have built-in workflows for all tasks. For example, if you need a workflow for compliance, you will need to create a custom workflow."
"The biggest challenge has been related to the implementation."
"The solution needs to be more reactive to investigations. We need to be able to detect and prevent any attacks before it can damage our infrastructure. Currently, this solution doesn't offer that."
"With Elastic Security, the challenge arises from the fact that there is a learning curve in relation to queries and understanding the query language provided to extract usable data."
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
Devo is ranked 16th in Log Management with 7 reviews while Elastic Security is ranked 5th in Log Management with 28 reviews. Devo is rated 8.4, while Elastic Security is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Devo writes "Keeps 400 days of hot data, covers our cloud products, and has a high ingestion rate and super easy log integrations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Elastic Security writes "Offers great capabilities to detect and respond to threats". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, IBM Security QRadar, LogRhythm SIEM and Dynatrace, whereas Elastic Security is most compared with Wazuh, Splunk Enterprise Security, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, IBM Security QRadar and CrowdStrike Falcon. See our Devo vs. Elastic Security report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors and best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.