We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and LogPoint based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: 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. LogPoint is noted for its advanced technology and extensive log-collection, parsing, and analysis mechanisms. 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. Reviews suggest LogPoint should improve its dashboard customization, resource efficiency, network hierarchy diagrams, and agent deployment.
Service and Support: Some QRadar customers have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. LogPoint's customer service receives high marks for its exceptional technical support and responsive engineers, but some users reported delays in receiving help from higher-level support.
Ease of Deployment: QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. The complexity of LogPoint's initial setup can range from complex and time-consuming to fast and easy, depending on the user's experience and the organization’s size.
Pricing: QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. LogPoint's fixed pricing model is seen as cost-effective and competitive.
ROI: QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. LogPoint makes costs more predictable and enables companies to generate revenue through security operation services.
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"This is stable and scalable."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Having all monitoring, response, tracking, and mitigation tools in one dashboard provides our analysts and SOC team with a comprehensive view at a glance."
"The stability is very good."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Fortinet FortiEDR's scalability is quite good, and you can add licenses to the solution."
"Vulnerability detection is the most valuable feature. It's the tool that finds the threats."
"The tool helps with infrastructure, application, and network monitoring."
"There are more than 120 extensions in QRadar, which are easy to install and configure. These can improve your analysis of events."
"I think it's a very stable product that provides much more visibility than the other product."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The interface is good."
"The most valuable features are log monitoring, easy-to-fix issues, and problem-solving."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with the GRD, for banking."
"What I like best about LogPoint is its cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions. LogPoint also has better dashboards which I find valuable. I also like that you can create use cases based on your assets."
"The solution's user interface is quite simple, and the integration is better than other products."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is the combination of the software and the support that they have."
"They basically charge you in a better way."
"The search feature is valuable. The dashboards are also valuable for our bosses. Another valuable feature, which is the main feature of the product, is the centralization of all the logs."
"The flexibility of the search feature and the solution's analytics features are the most valuable parts of the solution."
"We like the user and entity behaviour analytics (UEBA) and find it valuable."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"Everything with Fortinet having to do with their cloud services. They need to invest more in their internal infrastructure that they are running in the cloud. One of the things I find with their cloud environment compared to others' is that they go cheap on the equipment. So it causes some performance degradation."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Cannot be used on mobile devices with a secure connection."
"I would like the solution to extend beyond endpoint protection and include other attack surfaces such as other network components."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"Its architecture is very complicated."
"In terms of additional features, a mobile app would be nice. Also, the reporting is definitely okay, but you have to make sure that everybody with different roles can understand it. There is room for improvement in the reporting."
"There is a lot of manual configuration required in order for the product to run smoothly, and I think that it could be made more automatic."
"With IBM Security QRadar, my company faced issues with the support we received for the product."
"The solution is clunky."
"There could be improvements made to the UI, the user interface. Though the newer version, 7.3.2, might already have this improvement in place."
"The tech support is not that good."
"I would also like to see more integration with other vendors. IBM doesn't integrate well with products from China, like Huawei. Many Middle Eastern customers are switching to Huawei from American vendors like Cisco because of the price. In most RFPs, Huawei wins because it costs less."
"The solution should offer more integrations and third-party solutions like incident response platforms or allow access to third-party big data"
"LogPoint must find a way to integrate the servers without agents."
"Dashboards could be developed further."
"What could be improved in LogPoint is its UI because it's less friendly to users than LogRhythm. The UI could be more aesthetically appealing to users. It's completely outdated."
"We were missing visuals and graphics. Recently, a new version seems to have come out, and it has a new graphical user interface. When I was integrating it, it was usable, but the GUI needed improvement."
"Nowadays the trend is going towards the ransomware and the endpoint detection and response. So if they added something for that, that will be very, very good."
"The interface needs things like wizards that will assist with creating complex correlation rules."
"The thing that makes it a little bit challenging is when you run into a situation where you have logs that are not easily parsable. If a log has a very specific structure, it is very easy to parse and create a parser for it, but if a log has a free form, meaning that it is of any length or it can change at any time, handling such a log is very challenging, not just in LogPoint but also in everything else. Everybody struggles with that scenario, and LogPoint is also in the same boat. One-third of logs are of free form or not of a specific length, and you can run into situations where it is almost impossible to parse the log, even if they try to help you. It is just the nature of the beast."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Logpoint is ranked 28th in Log Management with 20 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Logpoint 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 Logpoint writes "Good technical support but it is complex to use and resource-heavy". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas Logpoint is most compared with Elastic Security, Rapid7 InsightIDR, Microsoft Sentinel, LogRhythm SIEM and Wazuh. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Logpoint report.
See our list of best Log Management vendors, best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) vendors, and best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) 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.