We performed a comparison between Logsign Next-Gen SIEM and RSA enVision based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Splunk, Wazuh and others in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)."I like the unified security console. You can close incidents using Sentinel in all other Microsoft Security portals, when it comes to incident response."
"It is always correlating to IOCs for normal attacks, using Azure-related resources. For example, if any illegitimate IP starts unusual activity on our Azure firewall, then it automatically generates an alarm for us."
"We didn't have anything similar. So, it really provides value from the incidents and automation point of view. The overview of the security fabric is most valuable."
"The initial setup is very simple and straightforward."
"The UI-based analytics are excellent."
"I believe one of the main advantages is Microsoft Sentinel's seamless integration with other Microsoft products."
"The data connectors that Microsoft Sentinel provides are easy to integrate when we work with a Microsoft agent."
"We are able to deploy within half an hour and we only require one person to complete the implementation."
"Logsign provides sample logs within the product, allowing users to see how logs will appear before integration, which is a valuable feature for testing and understanding log formats."
"The most valuable feature is the management features. It's capable of managing large enterprises."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the reporting."
"The configuration part is very easy...The technical support was sincere in their responses...I rate the technical support a nine out of ten."
"Sentinel can be used in two ways. With other tools like QRadar, I don't need to run queries. Using Sentinel requires users to learn KQL to run technical queries and check things. If they don't know KQL, they can't fully utilize the solution."
"We do have in-built or out-of-the-box metrics that are shown on the dashboard, but it doesn't give the kind of metrics that we need from our environment whereby we need to check the meantime to detect and meantime to resolve an incident. I have to do it manually. I have to pull all the logs or all the alerts that are fed into Sentinel over a certain period. We do this on a monthly basis, so I go into Microsoft Sentinel and pull all the alerts or incidents we closed over a period of thirty days."
"Azure Sentinel will be directly competing with tools such as Splunk or Qradar. These are very established kinds of a product that have been around for the last seven, eight years or more."
"Microsoft Defender has a built-in threat expert option that enables you to contact an expert. That feature isn't available in Sentinel because it's a huge product that integrates all the technologies. I would like Microsoft to add the threat expert option so we can contact them. There are a few other features, like threat assessment that the PG team is working on. I expect them to release this feature in the next quarter."
"Sometimes, we are observing large ingestion delays. We expect logs within 5 minutes, but it takes about 10 to 15 minutes."
"The following would be a challenge for any product in the market, but we have some in-house apps in our environment... our apps were built with different parameters and the APIs for them are not present in Sentinel. We are working with Microsoft to build those custom APIs that we require. That is currently in progress."
"Sentinel still has some anomalies. For example, sometimes when we write a query for log analysis with KQL, it doesn't give us the data in a proper way... Also, the fields or columns could be improved. Sometimes, it is not giving the desired results and there is a blank field."
"Improvement-wise, I would like to see more integration with third-party solutions or old-school antivirus products that have some kind of logging capability. I wouldn't mind having that exposed within Sentinel. We do have situations where certain companies have bought licensing or have made an investment in a product, and that product will be there for the next two or three years. To be able to view information from those legacy products would be great. We can then better leverage the Sentinel solution and its capabilities."
"I hope they address the pricing model for Logsign Next-Gen SIEM, especially regarding regional variations. The pricing should not differ based on the country of operation as it can lead to dissatisfaction among customers. A fixed pricing structure would be more favorable for us. I would also suggest enhancing the GUI interface and adding features similar to xFi Exchange from IBM Pure. This would streamline operations and save time for analysts."
"The integration could be easier, it should support more products."
"In general, the solution currently isn't user-friendly."
"RSA enVision log manager is out of date and is not in use anymore."
Logsign Next-Gen SIEM is ranked 39th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 2 reviews while RSA enVision is ranked 36th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 5 reviews. Logsign Next-Gen SIEM is rated 7.6, while RSA enVision is rated 6.8. The top reviewer of Logsign Next-Gen SIEM writes "Easy to use and find the features that you need". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA enVision writes "Though the solution offers good technical support, it needs to be made more user-friendly ". Logsign Next-Gen SIEM is most compared with Grafana Loki, Wazuh, IBM Security QRadar, ManageEngine EventLog Analyzer and Splunk Enterprise Security, whereas RSA enVision is most compared with NetWitness Platform, Splunk Enterprise Security and IBM Security QRadar.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
