We performed a comparison between Devo and Microsoft Sentinel based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Devo users praised the solution’s ability to ingest and store data in its original format and multi-tenancy feature. They also liked Devo’s community-driven content and code-based approach. Microsoft Sentinel effectively identifies threats and integrates seamlessly with other Microsoft solutions. Devo could benefit from improved workflow integration and search features. Users say Devo’s agents could handle Windows event logs better, and the solution should overhaul its basic reporting mechanisms. Microsoft Sentinel could benefit from simplifying documentation, enhancing collaboration with security vendors, and improving data ingestion. Users also want more robust threat intelligence and UEBA features.
Service and Support: Devo customers value their collaborative approach, responsiveness, and strong partnerships. Customers appreciate the ease of working with Devo and trust their support team. Some users praised Microsoft’s quick response times and expertise, while others experienced challenges and support delays.
Ease of Deployment: Devo's initial setup was deemed manageable, with users praising the ease of data onboarding as well as the availability of professional services and training. Some users said that deploying Microsoft Sentinel is straightforward, while others consider it to be moderately complex.
Pricing: Devo's pricing is considered fair and competitive with no hidden costs. However, reviewers recommend that Devo's pricing tiers should offer more flexibility. Microsoft Sentinel charges customers based on data usage, and it can be expensive for users who need to ingest data from non-cloud sources.
ROI: Devo offers a substantial return on investment thanks to the solution’s superior data ingestion, scalability, and cost savings. Some Sentinel users have seen cost savings, while others have not experienced any financial benefits.
Comparison Results: Our users prefer Devo over Microsoft Sentinel Devo for its robust capabilities. Users praise Devo for its effortless data ingestion, comprehensive alert library, and high-speed search capabilities.
"Devo provides a multi-tenant, cloud-native architecture. This is critical for managed service provider environments or multinational organizations who may have subsidiaries globally. It gives organizations a way to consolidate their data in a single accessible location, yet keep the data separate. This allows for global views and/or isolated views restricted by access controls by company or business unit."
"In traditional BI solutions, you need to wait a lot of time to have the ability to create visualizations with the data and to do searches. With this kind of platform, you have that information in real-time."
"Devo has a really good website for creating custom configurations."
"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."
"The most powerful feature is the way the data is stored and extracted. The data is always stored in its original format and you can normalize the data after it has been stored."
"The most useful feature for us, because of some of the issues we had previously, was the simplicity of log integrations. It's much easier with this platform to integrate log sources that might not have standard logging and things like that."
"Scalability is one of Devo's strengths."
"The querying and the log-retention capabilities are pretty powerful. Those provide some of the biggest value-add for us."
"The solution offers a lot of data on events. It helps us create specific detection strategies."
"The machine learning and artificial intelligence on offer are great."
"If you know how to do KQL (kusto query language) queries, which are how you query the log data inside Sentinel, the information is pretty rich. You can get down to a good level of detail regarding event information or notifications."
"What is most useful, is that it has a good connection to the Microsoft ecosystem, and I think that's the key part."
"Its inbuilt Kusto Query Language is a valuable feature. It provides the flexibility needed to leverage advanced data analytics rules and policies and enables us to easily navigate all our security events in a single view. It helps any user easily understand the data or any security lags in their data and applications."
"The ability of all these solutions to work together natively is essential. We have an Azure subscription, including Log Analytics. This feature automatically acts as one of the security baselines and detects recommendations because it also integrates with Defender. We can pull the sysadmin logs from Azure. It's all seamless and native."
"The most valuable feature is the performance because unlike legacy SIEMs that were on-premises, it does not require as much maintenance."
"Sentinel has features that have helped improve our security poster. It helped us in going ahead and identifying the gaps via analysis and focusing on the key elements."
"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."
"An admin who is trying to audit user activity usually cannot go beyond a day in the UI. I would like to have access to pages and pages of that data, going back as far as the storage we have, so I could look at every command or search or deletion or anything that a user has run. As an admin, that would really help. Going back just a day in the UI is not going to help, and that means I have to find a different way to do that."
"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 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."
"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."
"The overall performance of extraction could be a lot faster, but that's a common problem in this space in general. Also, the stock or default alerting and detecting options could definitely be broader and more all-encompassing. The fact that they're not is why we had to write all our own alerts."
"We only use the core functionality and one of the reasons for this is that their security operation center needs improvement."
"Some of the documentation could be improved a little bit. A lot of times it doesn't go as deep into some of the critical issues you might run into. They've been really good to shore us up with support, but some of the documentation could be a little bit better."
"They need to work with other security vendors. For example, we replaced our email gateway with Symantec, but we couldn't collect these logs with Azure Sentinel. Instead of collecting these logs with Azure Sentinel, we are collecting them on Qradar. We couldn't do it with Sentinel, which is a problem for us."
"There are certain delays. For example, if an alert has been rated on Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, it might take up to an hour for that alert to reach Sentinel. This should ideally take no more than one or two seconds."
"If we want to use more features, we have to pay more. There are multiple solutions on the cloud itself, but the pricing model package isn't consistent, which is confusing to clients."
"The solution could be more user-friendly; some query languages are required to operate it."
"The product can be improved by reducing the cost to use AI machine learning."
"Its implementation could be simpler. It is not really simple or straightforward. It is in the middle. Sometimes, connectors are a little bit complex."
"Sometimes, we are observing large ingestion delays. We expect logs within 5 minutes, but it takes about 10 to 15 minutes."
"The playbook is a bit difficult and could be improved."
See how Devo allows you to free yourself from data management, and make machine data and insights accessible.
Devo is ranked 8th in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 12 reviews while Microsoft Sentinel is ranked 2nd in Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) with 71 reviews. Devo is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Sentinel is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Devo writes "True multi-tenancy, flexible, responsive support, and offers real-time search capabilities". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Sentinel writes "Gives a comprehensive and holistic view of the ecosystem and improves visibility and the ability to respond". Devo is most compared with Splunk Enterprise Security, Wazuh, LogRhythm SIEM, Elastic Security and IBM Security QRadar, whereas Microsoft Sentinel is most compared with AWS Security Hub, Splunk Enterprise Security, IBM Security QRadar, Microsoft Defender for Cloud and Elastic Security. See our Devo vs. Microsoft Sentinel report.
See our list of best Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) vendors.
We monitor all Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) 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.
