We performed a comparison between ArcSight Analytics and Microsoft Defender for Identity 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."One of the most valuable features is the alerts."
"The most valuable feature is the log monitoring."
"This solution allows us to identify connections for all users."
"The correlation engine is good."
"The data collection and the integration with different products are valuable features."
"ArcSight Analytics is used to get a deeper insight and threat analysis about the network."
"Less resource consumption in terms of memory and processing."
"The ability to correlate different logs is the solution's most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is that you can create your own customized detection rules. It has a lot of default alerts and rules, but you can customize them according to your business needs."
"The basic security monitoring at its core feature is the most valuable aspect. But also the investigative parts, the historical logging of events over the network are extremely interesting because it gives an in-depth insight into the history of account activity that is really easy to read, easy to follow, and easy to export."
"Defender for Identity has not affected the end-user experience."
"The solution offers excellent visibility into threats."
"The most valuable aspect is its connection to Microsoft Sentinel and Defender for Endpoint, and giving exact timelines for incidents and when certain events occured during an incident."
"One of our users had the same password for every personal and company account. That was a problem because she started receiving phishing emails that could compromise all of her accounts. Defender told us that the user was not changing their password."
"Microsoft Defender for Identity provides excellent visibility into threats by leveraging real-time analytics and data intelligence."
"All the integration it has with different Microsoft packages, like Teams and Office, is good."
"ArcSight is not a user-friendly solution and the interface needs to be improved."
"Their support team could be better."
"ArcSight's features that can be improved include anything related to its visualization capabilities and user friendliness."
"The GUI interface is not always intuitive and easy for non-technical users to work with."
"There is a GUI, but it is not complete and lacks functionality that needs to be performed using the console."
"The reporting and the way it is worded needs to be improved in future releases. The dashboards are quite poorly designed."
"Currently, there are no compatible connectors for this solution, which means we have to depend on FlexConnectors."
"It needs more user analytics and aggregation user queries. And it's slow. When you query over ArcSight, it is very slow."
"We observe a lot of false positives. Sometimes, when we go for a coffee break, we lock our screens. Locking the screen has a separate Windows event ID and sometimes I see it is detected as a failed login."
"An area for improvement is the administrative interface. It's basic compared to other administrative centers. They could make it more user-friendly and easier to navigate."
"Defender for Identity gives us visibility, but we often get false positives from Azure that take us down the garden path. We go through 30 incidents each day and most of those are false positives or benign positive alerts. Occasionally, we get true positive alerts."
"There is no option to remedy an issue directly from the console. If we see an alert, we can't fix it from the console. Instead, we must depend on other Microsoft products, such as MDE. That is a significant drawback. It simply works as a scanner, which can sometimes put enough load on the sensors. Immediate actions should be possible from the dashboard because. It can prevent issues from spreading further."
"One potential area for improvement could be exploring flexibility in the installation of Microsoft Defender for Identity agents."
"And when you are working in a priority IP address, Identity is not able to know that those IPs are from the company. It sees that the IPs are from Taiwan or from Hong Kong or from India, even though they are internal IPs, resulting in a lot of false positives."
"The technical support needs significant improvement. Documentation for more minor issues in the form of guides or walkthroughs could help to resolve this issue. The number of tickets raised would decrease, removing some pressure from the support team and making it easier to clear the remaining tickets."
"The impact of the sensors on the domain controllers can be quite high depending on your loads. I don't know if there's any room for improvement there, but that's one of the things that might be improved."
More Microsoft Defender for Identity Pricing and Cost Advice →
ArcSight Analytics is ranked 17th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 15 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Identity is ranked 1st in Identity Threat Detection and Response (ITDR) with 13 reviews. ArcSight Analytics is rated 7.0, while Microsoft Defender for Identity is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of ArcSight Analytics writes "It has improved our system and network policy monitoring". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Defender for Identity writes "Offers robust protection from insider threats, but the customer support is poor". ArcSight Analytics is most compared with Securonix UEBA, whereas Microsoft Defender for Identity is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID Protection, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Microsoft Entra Verified ID, Splunk User Behavior Analytics and Microsoft Sentinel. See our ArcSight Analytics vs. Microsoft Defender for Identity report.
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.
