No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

ArcSight Analytics vs OpenText Behavioral Signals comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

ArcSight Analytics
Ranking in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
18th
Average Rating
6.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
OpenText Behavioral Signals
Ranking in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
14th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) (41st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) category, the mindshare of ArcSight Analytics is 1.8%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Behavioral Signals is 2.4%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Behavioral Signals2.4%
ArcSight Analytics1.8%
Other95.8%
User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1311453 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Good filtering and reporting tools but can be difficult to use
It can scale as needed. It's not a problem. There are different teams using it. We have CSOC, which is internal, which is onshore, then we have a security operations center that is offshore, which would be in India. The onshore team might be a group of three, and the offshore might be a group of five. Likely, we have eight to ten people in total using the product directly.
Pravir KumarSinha - PeerSpot reviewer
Information Security at Synechron
Has essential threat detection capabilities, but the features for intelligence need enhancement
We integrated this tool with our security infrastructure. We installed it on a Linux server, where we have a Logger and ESM installed. With the Linux server as the hub, we manage all the configurations and rules, including those for email triggers. The logs are routed through a connector to the Logger, allowing us to monitor our infrastructure effectively. The platform helps us improve threat detection capabilities. I recommend it to others and rate it a seven out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Investigating an incident has become super easy and helpful."
"The most valuable feature is the log monitoring."
"The solution is easy to implement."
"This solution makes it easy to create use cases, and it is easy to move queries from use cases to the report to the dashboard."
"The correlation engine is good."
"The two most valuable features of this solution are its stability and scalability."
"Our organization has improved because ArcSight allows multiple integrations with multiple systems which we did not do before using the product."
"One of the most valuable features is the alerts."
"The ability to tailor an environment to suit our specific use cases is a major advantage of ArcSight compared to other logging servers such as Splunk."
"The product has a valuable interface."
"The platform helps us improve threat detection capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of ArcSight Intelligence is a single console where the entire dashboard gives all the connected details in a single place."
"We found the correlation engine to be very good, as it takes logs from different types of devices and does the correlation in a good way."
 

Cons

"The ArcSight Analytic is not so easy."
"It needs more user analytics and aggregation user queries. And it's slow. When you query over ArcSight, it is very slow."
"The GUI interface is not always intuitive and easy for non-technical users to work with."
"Their support team could be better. They've gone downhill since their product has been acquired."
"The interactive dashboard is more complicated comparing to his concurrent Qradar and you need to have training in order to do complexe configuration, so I think that it could be made easier to use."
"ArcSight's features that can be improved include anything related to its visualization capabilities and user friendliness."
"[There is] complexity in maintaining it and managing it. It's not easy to use. It requires a lot of training."
"There is a GUI, but it is not complete and lacks functionality that needs to be performed using the console."
"We haven't found the product fully scalable."
"ArcSight Intelligence is a bit slower, and its speed should be improved."
"The dashboard is not user-friendly and is in black and white."
"The frequency of the updates that we are getting can be improved because the number and types of incidents that are happening at the global level are far more than what we are receiving. The frequency of updates feeds related to our rules should be increased. There should be more frequent information about the new rules that are coming and the global threats that are happening. There should be better options for dashboard creation. At present, the dashboards are good, but there is scope to make them better."
"ArcSight Intelligence's pricing needs improvement."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"ArcSight Analytics is a bit expensive compared with other tools in terms of licensing costs, training, hardware implementation, and support."
"In addition to the costs of standard licensing fees, there is the cost of labor for maintenance."
"The monthly licensing fee is around $20,000. There aren't any costs in addition to the standard licensing fee."
"My customers pay a yearly licensing fee for ArcSight Analytics."
"It can range between $30,000 and $40,000 USD, and can go up to $500,000 and $600,000 USD."
"This solution is expensive."
"Its price is average and not very high. Splunk might be a bit cheaper than this. Its licensing is on a monthly basis."
"They offer perpetual licenses for the product."
"It is an expensive platform."
"The solution is expensive and only suitable for enterprise environments."
"ArcSight Intelligence is an expensive solution."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) solutions are best for your needs.
900,228 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user186927 - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Operations at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
Feb 16, 2015
Cybereason vs. Interset vs. SQRRL
Capture DB - they all use NoSQL db and hence solve the ad hoc query and 'go back in time' problem with current best of breed SIEM and DLP solutions that rely on real time analysis of incoming logs (and don't store them). This means deeper and quicker iterative threat analysis and assessment…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
20%
Marketing Services Firm
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
University
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What SOC product do you recommend?
For tools I’d recommend: -SIEM- LogRhythm -SOAR- Palo Alto XSOAR Doing commercial w/o both (or at least an XDR) is asking to miss details that are critical, and ending up a statistic. Also, rememb...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

ArcSight User Behavior Analytics, ArcSight UBA
ArcSight Interset / Intelligence, FileTrek, Interset UEBA, Micro Focus Interset UEBA, Micro Focus Interset, ArcSight Interset
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Accuvant, Splunk Inc., NuTech, Box, rSolutions, Voodoo Technology Limited
Find out what your peers are saying about ArcSight Analytics vs. OpenText Behavioral Signals and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,228 professionals have used our research since 2012.