DNIF HYPERCLOUD vs Devo comparison

"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."

"The user experience [is] well thought out and the workflows are logical. The dashboards are intuitive and highly customizable."

"The ability to have high performance, high-speed search capability is incredibly important for us. When it comes to doing security analysis, you don't want to be doing is sitting around waiting to get data back while an attacker is sitting on a network, actively attacking it. You need to be able to answer questions quickly. If I see an indicator of attack, I need to be able to rapidly pivot and find data, then analyze it and find more data to answer more questions. You need to be able to do that quickly. If I'm sitting around just waiting to get my first response, then it ends up moving too slow to keep up with the attacker. Devo's speed and performance allows us to query in real-time and keep up with what is actually happening on the network, then respond effectively to events."

"The user interface is really modern. As an end-user, there are a lot of possibilities to tailor the platform to your needs, and that can be done without needing much support from Devo. It's really flexible and modular. The UI is very clean."

"The strength of Devo is not only in that it is pretty intuitive, but it gives you the flexibility and creativity to merge feeds. The prime examples would be using the synthesis or union tables that give you phenomenal capabilities... The ability to use a synthesis or union table to combine all those feeds and make heads or tails of what's going on, and link it to go down a thread, is functionality that I hadn't seen before."

"One of the biggest features of the UI is that you see the actual code of what you're doing in the graphical user interface, in a little window on the side. Whatever you're doing, you see the code, what's happening. And you can really quickly switch between using the GUI and using the code. That's really useful."

"Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."

"Even if it's a relatively technical tool or platform, it's very intuitive and graphical. It's very appealing in terms of the user interface. The UI has a graphically interface with the raw data in a table. The table can be as big as you want it, depending on your use case. You can easily get a report combining your data, along with calculations and graphical dashboards. You don't need a lot of training, because the UI is relatively very intuitive."

"The solution is quite stable and offers good performance. It also works on a virtual machine. We haven't found any issues with it so far. It's been reliable."

"Great for scaling productivity for log monitoring purposes."

"Has a great search capability."

"The dashboard is helpful, and it creates visualizations to let staff review event data and identify patterns and anomalies."

"The response time on queries is super-fast."

"The User Behavior Analytics is a built-in threat-hunting feature. It detects and reports on any kind of malware or ransomware that enters the network."

"I like the MITRE table, a feature I saw for the first time in the same solution. There was one MITRE tactic table, which can be used to identify threats if you have all kinds of rules enabled or if you have rules for all the tactics in the MITRE table. There are 14 tables in MITRE, and those 14 tables consist of multiple columns, tactics, and techniques. It was one of the first SIEM tools I saw that had that particular MITRE table. On that basis, you can create new rules and identify existing ones. At any point, if an alert is triggered, it will try to match it to any of those MITRE tactics. I liked that creating a workbook on MITRE business was straightforward. I also like that you can search using SQL or DQL."

"The beauty of the solution is that you can develop infrastructure for a data lake using open sources that are separate from the licenses."

"The price is one problem with Devo."

"Some third-parties don't have specific API connectors built, so we had to work with Devo to get the logs and parse the data using custom parsers, rather than an out-of-the-box solution."

"There is room for improvement in the ability to parse different log types. I would go as far as to say the product is deficient in its ability to parse multiple, different log types, including logs from major vendors that are supported by competitors. Additionally, the time that it takes to turn around a supported parser for customers and common log source types, which are generally accepted standards in the industry, is not acceptable. This has impacted customer onboarding and customer relationships for us on multiple fronts."

"The Activeboards feature is not as mature regarding the look and feel. Its functionality is mature, but the look and feel is not there. For example, if you have some data sets and are trying to get some graphics, you cannot change anything. There's just one format for the graphics. You cannot change the size of the font, the font itself, etc."

"There are some issues from an availability and functionality standpoint, meaning the tool is somewhat slow. There were some slow response periods over the past six to nine months, though it has yet to impact us terribly as we are a relatively small shop. We've noticed it, however, so Devo could improve the responsiveness."

"Some basic reporting mechanisms have room for improvement. Customers can do analysis by building Activeboards, Devo’s name for interactive dashboards. This capability is quite nice, but it is not a reporting engine. Devo does provide mechanisms to allow third-party tools to query data via their API, which is great. However, a lot of folks like or want a reporting engine, per se, and Devo simply doesn't have that. This may or may not be by design."

"They can improve their AI capabilities"

"Their documentation could be better. They are growing quickly and need to have someone focused on tech writing to ensure that all the different updates, how to use them, and all the new features and functionality are properly documented."

"The solution should be able to connect to endpoints, such as desktops and laptops... If this solution had a smart connector to these logs- Windows, Linux, or any other logs - without affecting the performance of the connector, that would be wonderful."

"I think DNIF HYPERCLOUD can implement the ability to export more than 100,000. At the moment, we can't go beyond that. So many times, if you're checking for the firewall logs and working on something related to authentication or network-related traffic, while that log count is low, the account goes beyond that. You can't restrict the logs or the amount of data you can export. It's very important for my situation. It would be better if they could increase the capacity of exports. Although there are many more types of searching in DNIF HYPERCLOUD, people still struggle to query out what they want because not everyone is good at SQL or DQL. The easiest way to query out in DNIF is using the GUI-based interface. But in the GUI interface, you can use operator calls. It gets tricky when you want to search for a specific type of event. You don't know where it will be passed and whether it will be consistent. In the initial phase, it's tough for us to use DNIF. You cannot pass every event in a stable DNIF. When we used that particular tool, we used to get those logs, but sometimes many things are not getting passed. So, we used to export the sheet or export the data into Excel and weigh the required details. In the next release, I would like them to improve the export of the columns and make the application more user-friendly. I would also like a threat-hunting feature in the next release."

"The EBA could be improved."

"There are currently some issues with machine learning plug-ins."

"Dependency on the DNIF support team was frustrating."

"The vendor is fairly new and it's not as big as some of the international competitors. It's not a mature product. If you ask them to move data, it might take a lot of time."

"The solution's command line should be simpler so that routine commands can be used."

"I feel that DNIF needs to invest more in marketing, considering that it operates at a very competitive speed."

"I like the pricing very much. They keep it simple. It is a single price based on data ingested, and they do it on an average. If you get a spike of data that flows in, they will not stick it to you or charge you for that. They are very fair about that."

"Our licensing fees are billed annually and per terabyte."

"Devo is a hosted or subscription-based solution, whereas before, we purchased QRadar, so we owned it and just had to pay a maintenance fee. We've encountered this with some other products, too, where we went over to subscription-based. Our thought process is that with subscription based, the provider hosts and maintains the tool, and it's offsite. That comes with some additional fees, but we were able to convince our upper management it was worth the price. We used to pay under 10k a year for maintenance, and now we're paying ten times that. It was a relatively tough sell to our management, but I wonder if we have a choice anymore; this is where the market is."

"The way Devo prices things is based on the amount of data, and I wish the tiers had more granularity. Maybe at this point they do, but when we first negotiated with them, there were only three or four tiers."

"It's a per gigabyte cost for ingestion of data. For every gigabyte that you ingest, it's whatever you negotiated your price for. Compared to other contracts that we've had for cloud providers, it's significantly less."

"Be cautious of metadata inclusion for log types in pricing, as there are some "gotchas" with that."

"Devo was very cost-competitive... Devo did come with that 400 days of hot data, and that was not the case with other products."

"Pricing is based on the number of gigabytes of ingestion by volume, and it's on a 30-day average. If you go over one day, that's not a big deal as long as the average is what you expected it to be."

"The pricing is based on the log size."

"Price-wise, the product is quite economical. I rate the solution's price as three or four on a scale of one to ten, where one is considered to be a very economically priced tool."

"The solution requires a huge infrastructure and that is costly."