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."

"It centralizes security management within a business, functioning as a core system for a SOC."

"The real-time analytics of security-related data are super. There are a lot of data feeds going into it and it's very quick at pulling up and correlating the data and showing you what's going on in your infrastructure. It's fast. The way that their architecture and technology works, they've really focused on the speed of query results and making sure that we can do what we need to do quickly. Devo is pulling back information in a fast fashion, based on real-time events."

"It's very, very versatile."

"Being able to build and modify dashboards on the fly with Activeboards streamlines my analyst time because my analysts aren't doing it across spreadsheets or five different tools to try to build a timeline out themselves. They can just ingest it all, build a timeline out across all the logging, and all the different information sources in one dashboard. So, it's a huge time saver. It also has the accuracy of being able to look at all those data sources in one view. The log analysis, which would take 40 hours, we can probably get through it in about five to eight hours using Devo."

"Devo helps us to unlock the full power of our data because they have more than 450 parsers, which means that we can ingest pretty much any type of log data."

"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."

"Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."

"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."

"Great for scaling productivity for log monitoring purposes."

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

"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 most valuable feature of the solution is the number of EPS it can handle."

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

"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."

"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."

"The biggest area with room for improvement in Devo is the Security Operations module that just isn't there yet. That goes back to building out how they're going to do content and larger correlation and aggregation of data across multiple things, as well as natively ingesting CTI to create rule sets."

"I would like to have the ability to create more complex dashboards."

"Where Devo has room for improvement is the data ingestion and parsing. We tend to have to work with the Devo support team to bring on and ingest new sources of data."

"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 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."

"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."

"The price is one problem with Devo."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Dependency on the DNIF support team was frustrating."

"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."

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

"The EBA could be improved."

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

"It's very competitive. That was also a primary draw for us. Some of the licensing models with solutions like Splunk and Sentinel were attractive upfront, but there were so many micro-charges and services we would've had to add on to make them what we wanted. We had to include things like SOAR and extended capabilities, whereas all those capabilities are completely included with the Devo platform. I haven't seen any additional fee."

"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."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

"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."

"[Devo was] in the ballpark with at least a couple of the other front-runners that we were looking at. Devo is a good value and, given the quality of the product, I would expect to pay more."

"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."

"The pricing is based on the log size."