We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Nagios Log Server based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Log Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Improved our organization's TCO."
"When it comes to QRadar, they can do the correlation and not only in networks but also endpoints. This is one of the good features that we have noticed."
"It protect us from multiple authentication values, unauthorized access and antivirus threats."
"Log correlation is very useful for processing alerts. It serves to follow up alerts in real-time, building an entire workflow."
"It is the core of our entire SOX."
"It showed us where weaknesses were in our environment, so we could actively target those patches first."
"What we like about QRadar and the models that IBM has, is it can go from a small-to-medium enterprise to a larger organization, and it gives you the same value."
"The interface is good."
"A great feature of the solution involves its internal portal."
"The initial setup of Nagios Log Server was easy and straightforward."
"One of the most valuable features is the dashboard because the UI was effective and easy to use. The alert systems are good as well. We had no failovers and had high availability. We can search the queries fast as well in Nagios Log Server."
"It provides an easy way to identify errors and spot issues, making troubleshooting more efficient."
"The product is scalable."
"The solution is expensive compared to other products."
"While the interface is easy to use, it could be a little more responsive."
"It's resource-intensive."
"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."
"Some UI enhancements would be nice, such as exporting custom event properties and the ability to export rules."
"I'm not sure about the stability just yet. We've observed a few issues and we raised a supporting ticket for it."
"Needs better visualization options beyond the time series charts and a few other options that they have."
"The modularity could be improved."
"The customization and dashboards have shortcomings and need to be improved to make the tool look more presentable."
"The support could be better."
"The configurations during initial setup could be improved. If they could be agentless, as in the case of the Ansible product, it would be better. I would like to be able to analyze the network bandwidth."
"It would be beneficial for Nagios to incorporate a tool that goes beyond log management and includes features to monitor overall system health and assess the effectiveness of antivirus solutions."
"As we are talking about a product which is open to the public, the pricing makes it challenging for us to profit off of its marketing."
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 6th in Log Management with 198 reviews while Nagios Log Server is ranked 38th in Log Management with 5 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Nagios Log Server is rated 7.8. 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 Nagios Log Server writes "A scalable and affordable tool for monitoring data centers ". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security, whereas Nagios Log Server is most compared with Wazuh, Graylog, LogRhythm SIEM, syslog-ng and ManageEngine EventLog Analyzer. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Nagios Log Server report.
See our list of best Log Management 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.