We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Splunk User Behavior Analytics based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Search capabilities are sufficient for most tasks."
"The best part of this solution is having a third-party SOC."
"The most valuable features are all the implementations, the plug-ins, and the User Behavior Analytics (UBA)."
"In addition to using this solution for our security operations center, we are using it for our other customers."
"The most valuable features are log monitoring, easy-to-fix issues, and problem-solving."
"The stability is good."
"It's hard for me to pinpoint any one feature that's most valuable because it is all about consuming logs and analyzing them. We started using QRadar UBA because we needed something that could analyze Linux authentication information. Other products take care of the Windows platform."
"The flexibility is good in terms of pulling log files."
"The solution is extremely scalable. Our customers are regularly scaling up after installing Splunk."
"This is a good security product."
"The most valuable features are its data aggregation and the ability to automatically identify a number of threats, then suggest recommended actions upon them."
"The solution appears to be stable, although we haven't used it heavily."
"Because of some of the visualizations that we utilize, we are able to understand strange, unusual traffic on our networks."
"We are really pleased with Splunk and its features. It would be practically impossible to function without it. To provide a general overview of the system, it's important to note that the standard log files are currently around 250 gigabytes per day. It would be impossible to manually walk through these logs by hand, which is why automation is essential."
"The product is at the forefront of auto-remediation networking. It's great."
"It's easily scalable."
"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."
"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 don't look at only the features and benefits; I also look at the price. It is a bit expensive when compared with other solutions. It is expensive for specific deployment topologies, and the decision-makers go for alternatives like ArcSight. It should also have more AI features or capabilities for better threat intelligence. The more it uses machine learning, the better would be the dashboard, analytics, and other things."
"QVM is another instance where they need to revise the vulnerability scoring and the proper remediation details."
"QRadar needs a lot of fine tuning"
"The custom rules could be simplified more or it should be possible to use a different language, other than the ones that the solution is already using. They should add other languages into the mix."
"I would like for Yara to be supported by all components."
"It could be easier to scale the solution if you are using it on-premise, not in the cloud."
"We'd like the ability to do custom searches."
"The initial setup was complex because some of the configurations that we required needed customization."
"If the price was lowered and the setup process was less complex, I would consider rating it higher."
"The correlation engine should have persistent and definable rules."
"They should work to add more built-in correlation searches and more use cases based on worldwide customer experiences. They need more ready-made use cases."
"Currently, a lot of network operations need improvement. We still need people to handle incidents. Our vision is to leverage status and convert it directly from the network devices. It would be ideal if we could take action using APIs and API code and remove manual processes."
"The solution is much more expensive than relative competitors like ArcSight or LogRhythm. It makes it hard to sell to customers sometimes."
More Splunk User Behavior Analytics Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Security QRadar is ranked 1st in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 198 reviews while Splunk User Behavior Analytics is ranked 2nd in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 17 reviews. IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0, while Splunk User Behavior Analytics is rated 8.2. 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 Splunk User Behavior Analytics writes "Easy to configure and easy to use solution that integrates with many applications and scripts ". IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Cortex XSIAM, whereas Splunk User Behavior Analytics is most compared with Darktrace, Microsoft Defender for Identity, Varonis Datalert, Cynet and Exabeam Fusion SIEM. See our IBM Security QRadar vs. Splunk User Behavior Analytics report.
See our list of best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) 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.