We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and ArcSight ESM based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: IBM Security 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. ArcSight ESM is praised for its well-designed dashboard, real-time reporting, and threat intelligence capabilities that leverage AI and correlation tools. Users also like ArcSight’s seamless integration and effortless management. 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. ArcSight ESM users have recommended improvements in training, speed, and data administration.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Some ArcSight ESM users have found the support to be responsive and helpful, while others have faced issues with slow response times and a lack of expertise.
Ease of Deployment: IBM Security QRadar's initial setup can be complex for users without expertise, and the difficulty may vary depending on the size of the data set. Some said that ArcSight ESM is straightforward to set up, while others noted that integration with other systems can be challenging and requires specialized knowledge.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Users consider the pricing of ArcSight ESM to be reasonable and affordable.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. ArcSight ESM yields an ROI by helping clients achieve compliance objectives and prevent incidents.
"The standout feature of Sentinel is that, because it's cloud-based and because it's from Microsoft, it integrates really well with all the other Microsoft products. It's really simple to set up and get going."
"It is easy to implement (turn on) - does need a skilled analyst to develop queries and playbooks."
"It has basic out-of-the-box integrations with multiple log sources."
"We’ve got process improvement that's happened across multiple different fronts within the organization, within our IT organization based on this tool being in place."
"The part that was very unexpected was Sentinel's ability to integrate with Azure Lighthouse, which, as a managed services solution provider, gives us the ability to also manage our customers' Sentinel environments or Sentinel workspaces. It is a big plus for us. With its integration with Lighthouse, we get the ability to monitor multiple workspaces from one portal. A lot of the Microsoft Sentinel workbooks already integrate with that capability, and we save countless amounts of money by simply being able to almost immediately realize multitenant capabilities. That alone is a big plus for us."
"The most valuable feature is the onboarding of the workloads. You can see all that has been onboarded in your account on the dashboards."
"It's easy to use. It's a very good product. It can easily ingest data from anywhere. It has an easily understandable language to perform actions."
"I've worked on most of the top SIEM solutions, and Sentinel has an edge in most areas. For example, it has built-in SOAR capabilities, allowing you to run playbooks automatically. Other vendors typically offer SOAR as a separate licensed solution or module, but you get it free with Sentinel. In-depth incident integration is available out of the box."
"ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) works perfectly. It's a stable and scalable product."
"The reports that we are from getting from ArcSight are very valuable. The reporting in ArcSight is good. Our regulators ask us for the reports on a regular basis, and we have been able to provide the required data. Its overall functionality in terms of log analysis and the speed at which it does that is also valuable. It is very quick. Whatever alerts we had configured were extremely fast. We immediately get alerts when there is unauthorized access or unknown access, or even positive access. This is where we found the difference between ArcSight and other solutions."
"It prevented my users from getting infected by ransomware. It can also pinpoint the story behind every virus or network attack to our environment."
"The solution offers very good monitoring."
"For the typical malware or intrusion, this solution assists us by identifying the symptoms based on network traffic from the application servers."
"We utilize ArcSight ESM for real-time threat detection in our organization. We have custom rules that we've developed on top of the WAN services, along with scheduled licensing activities."
"The correlation feature is good."
"The out-of-the-box rules that help us configure functioning rules within the environment are valuable."
"IBM QRadar is easy to scale, it doesn't affect the environment. In our office, we have around 40 - 50 users, but our clients have more users on their networks. Our organization has staff in the software department that manages IBM QRadar for us."
"Network-Based Anomaly Detection (NBAD): Using NetFlow, JFlow, SFlow, or QFlow (all 7 layers), offenses are detected as a response when a rule is triggered."
"The UBA feature is the most valuable because you can see everything about users' activities."
"IBM QRadar has improved my organization by introducing many functions. It collects logs from all of our systems in the organization and has functioned very well. It alerts and correlates the aggregate events or offenses we receive through all the applications we use."
"IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics has easy architecture, has a good portfolio and integration."
"The most valuable features of IBM Security QRadar are flexibility, IBM support, and scalability."
"I have used IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics in a Cloud Pak on Amazon, and there it runs on top of it and is easy to assess. Additionally, I have installed processes and characters."
"QRadar has somewhat of a new structure recently from last gen. They have moved from the standard UI based infrastructure."
"If Sentinel had a graphical user interface, it would be easier to use. I would also like it to be more customizable."
"They need to work with other security vendors. For example, we replaced our email gateway with Symantec, but we couldn't collect these logs with Azure Sentinel. Instead of collecting these logs with Azure Sentinel, we are collecting them on Qradar. We couldn't do it with Sentinel, which is a problem for us."
"Sentinel could improve its ticketing and management. A few customers I have worked with liked to take the data created in Sentinel. You can make some basic efforts around that, but the customers wanted to push it to a third-party system so they could set up a proper ticketing management system, like ServiceNow, Jira, etc."
"The playbook is a bit difficult and could be improved."
"We have been working with multiple customers, and every time we onboard a customer, we are missing an essential feature that surprisingly doesn't exist in Sentinel. We searched the forums and knowledge bases but couldn't find a solution. When you onboard new customers, you need to enable the data connectors. That part is easy, but you must create rules from scratch for every associated connector. You click "next," "next," "next," and it requires five clicks for each analytical rule. Imagine we have a customer with 150 rules."
"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."
"The solution could improve the playbooks."
"There is room for improvement in entity behavior and the integration site."
"The roadmap is not clear."
"The way that scaling is set up isn't very cost-effective."
"Deployment typology could be improved. Difficult to scale across all the different lines of businesses."
"The user interface of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager could improve. It is not very good. Additionally, they could integrate the web interface better."
"ArcSight ESM could improve by adding more features and documentation. There needs to be more documentation."
"Sometimes, it takes ages to get an issue resolved. I have ArcSight experience, so I normally try to fix things on my own or find a workaround, but it's tough to get support when I need it."
"The security area has room for improvement."
"I am having issues with report generation with older versions. I don't know if this is because of compatibility issues, but report generation has been a little bit difficult in older versions. It is not similar to the newer and current versions. We are looking at moving to the cloud. It would be good if ArcSight ESM can move to the cloud. They already seem to be working on this. It would also be very helpful and great if we can integrate external threat intelligence, machine learning, and AI into this solution. It has good dashboards, but they can always be better. Its stability can also be improved."
"Technical support is good, but not great."
"For the common needs of clients to fulfill requirements, a real integration with Blueworks Live (BPA modeling tool also from IBM) and a more suitable BPM on cloud solution for midsize customers."
"I would suggest QRadar release any documentation or give an online demo, like videos on YouTube. It would increase publicity and public appeal."
"They have to build more quantitative monitoring, profiling, and make it more predictive."
"QRadar log integration of various applications can be a tough job at times. There may be occasions when you will not find any QRadar guide on adding logs of a particular application. Even if you come across one, adding a log process is not an easy one."
"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."
"We sometimes get an error about the hard drive. Approximately once in two months, we can't find the logs, and they go missing, which is a terrible issue. We are getting support for this issue from our support company."
"The initial setup requires that you have somebody with the proper skill set, and it would help if the configuration were easier."
More ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is ranked 12th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 93 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 4th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 198 reviews. ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is rated 7.8, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) writes "Allows for monitoring logs according to industry standards within ESM but has a total capacity capped at 12 TB, limiting real-time data retention periods". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, ArcSight Intelligence, Trellix ESM, Elastic Security and LogRhythm SIEM, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM, Elastic Security and Sentinel. See our ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
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.