We performed a comparison between IBM Security QRadar and Cynet 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. Cynet offers strong ransomware protection and an intuitive interface. IBM Security 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. Cynet needs to expand device support and add customization options. Users suggest improving network monitoring and strengthening integration with other tools.
Service and Support: Some customers of IBM Security QRadar have had trouble connecting with knowledgeable support staff and experienced delayed responses. Cynet's customer service is consistently lauded for its excellence. They have a dedicated support team that is available round the clock, and they also have a contingency plan for urgent incidents.
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. Cynet’s setup is highly efficient, with the ability to configure thousands of devices quickly.
Pricing: IBM Security QRadar can be costly because users need to buy new hardware to upgrade. Customers generally think Cynet is affordable and a good value for its features.
ROI: IBM Security QRadar delivers a high return on investment, improving security through its advanced user behavior analytics. Cynet yields an excellent ROI by preventing cyberattacks and safeguarding sensitive data.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer IBM Security QRadar over Cynet. The advanced security features and overall strength of QRadar make it the favored option. Users like QRadar's extensive and actionable insights, user-friendly interface, and adaptability. QRadar offers a comprehensive overview of network activity and risk management.
"I like 365 Defender's advanced threat hunting. The dashboard is user-friendly with templates for site policies, etc. The most important use case is evaluating the risk links and applications."
"The advantage of Microsoft Defender XDR has over other XDRs in the market is that it's easy to use. You can quickly differentiate between alerts, incidents, devices, software, etc. It's easier to investigate an incident, and you have so many options. You can automate investigations and use playbooks. There's also the live response session, which is something you can't find in any other XDR."
"The integration with other Microsoft solutions is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect is undoubtedly the exploration capability"
"I like that it's fully integrated with Windows, Microsoft 365 Exchange Online, and Outlook. It is better than other antivirus solutions because it's fully integrated with all Microsoft products. It's easy to integrate them and onboard all Windows devices from SCCM."
"Defender is easy to use. It has a nice console, and everything is all in one place."
"Microsoft 365 Defender's most valuable feature is the ability to control the shadow IP."
"The attack simulation is excellent; initially, this feature wasn't very robust, but Microsoft improved what we could achieve with it. We can now customize our practice phishing emails and include our company logo, for example. Attack simulation also helps integrate with third-party solutions where applicable and provides an overview of our security architecture through testing. The summary includes areas for improvement in our protection and what steps we need to take to get there."
"We are using almost all of the features and we find it quite good overall."
"A reliable security system that automatically quarantines anything suspicious."
"Cynet is light and transparent when downloaded. The product's data aggregation is also valuable since you can see everything you need on a page."
"I like that you can implement it in the managed service portfolio."
"The product is very easy to use. Customers really appreciate that."
"In terms of incident response, Cynet can contain attacks, offer a trial period to customers, and uninstall if not continued. The most valuable aspect is its integration capabilities, covering endpoints and network data for a comprehensive view of threats."
"I like that it is possible to use the solution to check more information about the users' devices."
"It is quite stable. I would rate the stability of the solution a nine out of ten."
"The product has plenty of features and capabilities."
"It protect us from multiple authentication values, unauthorized access and antivirus threats."
"The solution is flexible and easy to use."
"On the back-end, Watson helps me figure out an exact problem, sometimes giving me the result."
"I really like the feature we have with the logs, that if there are any credit card numbers being used, like a PII, you can just use rejects and you can mask it. This is a really good feature in QRadar."
"What's most valuable in IBM QRadar User Behavior Analytics is its higher availability than other tools."
"It helps us discover any threats with their alerts and tracking."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The support team is not competent or responsive."
"There are a few technical issues with Defender XDR that can be improved. Sometimes, the endpoint devices are not reporting properly to the Defender 365 portal. When you're getting all the information from the Microsoft portal, the devices are sometimes not in sync. We have hundreds of endpoint devices, some needing to be onboarded again."
"For some scenarios, it provides good visibility into threats, and for some scenarios, it doesn't. For example, sometimes the URLs within the emails have destinations, and you do get a screenshot and all further details, but it's not always the case. It would be good if they did a better job of enabling that for all the emails that they identified as malicious. When you get an email threat, you can go into the email and see more details, but the URL destination feature doesn't always show you a screenshot of the URL in that email. It also doesn't always give you the characteristics relating to that URL. It would be quite good if the information is complete where it says that we identified this URL, and this is what it looks like. There should be some threat intel about it. It should give you more details."
"The dashboard should be easier to use. There is also improvement needed in the reporting when it comes to exporting or scheduling reports."
"There is definitely scope for improvement in the automation area. Because the solution is a SaaS platform, we don't have the overall ability to automate stuff.... There is no direct way to go ahead because it's a SaaS platform."
"One of the biggest downsides of Microsoft products, in general, is that the menus are often difficult to find, as they tend to move from place to place between versions."
"The design of the user interface could use some work. Sometimes it's hard to find the exact information you need."
"There could be a way to proactively monitor unusual activity ."
"Most of their times are in Greenwich Mean Time. I would like to see more local time zones."
"They have some things in the pipeline, we understand, and they're going to be able to support Android and all these other devices soon. The key is the devices - which is an aspect that is lacking right now. Every company has that problem, not just Cynet."
"I'd like to see more data loss prevention within the product."
"An administration feature will be useful for Cynet."
"The solution lacks URL filtering."
"I would like to see more emphasis on building the data lake and storing all endpoint data in the enterprise data lake so that data mining can be performed"
"The reporting functionality in Cynet may not be as comprehensive or flexible as desired."
"Increased application for SOAR abilities across interconnected devices would be a welcome improvement."
"They need to improve their threat intelligence feed and they need to improve their user behavior analytics modules."
"The dashboard is pathetic and it takes a long time to perform a search."
"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."
"There is a shortage of skilled individuals with knowledge about the solution. There is training required."
"The solution lacks vendor support."
"The threat detection needs improvement, they have many false positives."
"We would like to see better instrumentation for debugging changes in the log flow."
"There needs to be better integration with other applications."
Cynet is ranked 4th in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 35 reviews while IBM Security QRadar is ranked 1st in User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) with 198 reviews. Cynet is rated 8.8, while IBM Security QRadar is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cynet writes "Provides memory protection, device control, and vulnerability management". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Security QRadar writes "A highly stable and scalable solution that provides good technical support". Cynet is most compared with CrowdStrike Falcon, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, ESET Endpoint Protection Platform and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks, whereas IBM Security QRadar is most compared with Microsoft Sentinel, Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM and Elastic Security. See our Cynet vs. IBM Security QRadar report.
See our list of best User Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) vendors, best Endpoint Detection and Response (EDR) vendors, and best Extended Detection and Response (XDR) 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.